Translated by Martin Nelson
Guide To Reading The Translation
The Summa Feudorum was written with a legal reader in mind. The work references other legal texts, whose full names and links to their descriptions can be found at the bottom of the page, and not recognizing these references for what they are can make the document appear chaotic and confusing. These references have been left in their original Latin throughout the text for easier recognition, and because a direct translation of these cited sources would appear nonsensical to the modern reader. An example of this form of in-text citation can be seen in the very first sentence:
"A fief is the concession of deeds having been made for homage, as in [Liber] Extra de symonia, c[apitulum] ex diligenti..."
I have also provided brackets to supplement John's abbreviations, followed by a footnote to the source using its modern abbreviation along with the location within the text that John is citing. Links to a description of each source are in the notes section at the bottom of the page. Additionally, there are a few differences in the way John introduces each new reference. These introductions, their original Latin, and the possible meanings for them have been provided in the notes section as well.
To the modern reader, the text can be a less than straightforward endeavor because we cannot approach the full meaning of certain deeply resonant terms. These terms include “dominus”, “vassallus”, and even “feudum”. Does the lord-vassal relationship simply describe a relationship between two individuals, or is there some requirement (social, economic, religious, etc.) that a lord or vassal must meet to have that title? Similarly, is fief a general description of a system or cultural norm, or a term that indicates a specific estate, act, or symbolic, intangible sign of authority or power? While John of Ancona opens the Summa Feudorum by trying to answer this exact question, the context of his answer is itself vague to the modern reader because the terms he uses to define a fief are not fully explained. What is the “concessio” exactly? What entails “homagium”? What “facta” qualify for this homage? The exact definitions of these terms are not given, perhaps because they were themselves not yet fully defined by the emerging lawyerly culture of the High Middle Ages. Furthermore, we must take care as we read the document to not bring our own definitions and interpretations to such terms, whose meanings have been debated by scholars for generations.
The Summa Feudorum was written with a legal reader in mind. The work references other legal texts, whose full names and links to their descriptions can be found at the bottom of the page, and not recognizing these references for what they are can make the document appear chaotic and confusing. These references have been left in their original Latin throughout the text for easier recognition, and because a direct translation of these cited sources would appear nonsensical to the modern reader. An example of this form of in-text citation can be seen in the very first sentence:
"A fief is the concession of deeds having been made for homage, as in [Liber] Extra de symonia, c[apitulum] ex diligenti..."
I have also provided brackets to supplement John's abbreviations, followed by a footnote to the source using its modern abbreviation along with the location within the text that John is citing. Links to a description of each source are in the notes section at the bottom of the page. Additionally, there are a few differences in the way John introduces each new reference. These introductions, their original Latin, and the possible meanings for them have been provided in the notes section as well.
To the modern reader, the text can be a less than straightforward endeavor because we cannot approach the full meaning of certain deeply resonant terms. These terms include “dominus”, “vassallus”, and even “feudum”. Does the lord-vassal relationship simply describe a relationship between two individuals, or is there some requirement (social, economic, religious, etc.) that a lord or vassal must meet to have that title? Similarly, is fief a general description of a system or cultural norm, or a term that indicates a specific estate, act, or symbolic, intangible sign of authority or power? While John of Ancona opens the Summa Feudorum by trying to answer this exact question, the context of his answer is itself vague to the modern reader because the terms he uses to define a fief are not fully explained. What is the “concessio” exactly? What entails “homagium”? What “facta” qualify for this homage? The exact definitions of these terms are not given, perhaps because they were themselves not yet fully defined by the emerging lawyerly culture of the High Middle Ages. Furthermore, we must take care as we read the document to not bring our own definitions and interpretations to such terms, whose meanings have been debated by scholars for generations.
Translation
First Section
What is (may/should be) a fief
A fief is the concession of deeds having been made for homage, as in [Liber] Extra de symonia, c[apitulum] ex diligenti,[1] and in this differing from emphyteusis, in which it is not owed homage but an annual rent, as the [Liber] extra de emphiteutico, the c[apitulum] potuit,[2] and the C[odex Iustiniani] de sacrosanct[tis] ecc[lesiis], aut[henticum][Novellae Iustiniani] qui res iam dictas,[3] and the C[odex Iustiniani] de iure emphi[teutico], l[iber] ii.[4] Or a fief is a service, which is "the act of a benevolent person bestowing joy and taking it by bestowing"[5] as in the liber feudorum [book of fiefs], rubrica in quibus causis feudum amittatur, c[apitulum] Ubertus de orto,[6] or a fief is the concession of a thing made to someone with the transference of the privileges of lordship to hold and enjoy together with the display of some type of honest servitude. I rightly say ‘honest servitude’ because if it is otherwise not regarded with respect: suppose the fief is granted to somebody who unjustly kills or strikes or sacrileges a man or renders service to the lord meretriciously or by some other evil. Then the concession of the fief does not hold, as argued using ff. [Digesta Iustiniani] ma[ndati vel contra], l[iber] si remunerandi, rei turpis,[7]et l[iber] si vero non remu[nerandi], si adholescens,[8] et l[iber] si mandavero tibi, qui edem.[9] ‘For instance generally we know base promises or concessions to be of no importance’, as in ff. [Digesta Iustiniani] de v[erborum] ob[ligationibus], l[iber] gerneraliter.[10] When on account of this a vassal is not held by the lord to obey in base deeds or disgrace, as argued using ff. [Digesta Iustiniani] de operis lib[ertorum], l[iber] hee demum opere,[11] and l[iber] eiusartificii,[12] when openly the lord is irrationally does this or orders him, as in libro feudorum, hic fi[nnitur] lex consuetudines regni incipiunt, c[apitulum] domino guerram.[13] For neither servant nor son of the father nor citizen of the magistrate or his own rector is held to obey in baseness by the master, as in ff. [Digesta Iustiniani] de act[ionibus] et ob[ligationibus], l[iber] servus,[14] and ff. [Digesta Iustiniani] de arbitris [receptis], l[iber] si cu[m] dies, i[n] compromisso.[15] And if they are subject with regards to harsher transgressions, they are not excused for that reason which they may have made on the order of the lord, but themselves and the lord are held to the punishment of the transgression, as in ff. [Digesta Iustiniani] de iniur[iis et famosis libellis], l[iber] no[n] solu[m], procul[us].[16] Indeed it does not order the ill-will of the vassal to be increased by the order of the lord, as argued using ff. [Digesta Iustiniani] de servo cor[rupto], l[iber] i, persuadere.[17] And moreover in others they are not cruel, reckon that he gives injury to someone in their own things, if he had complied with the lord, he may be justified according to secular laws. And himself not a vassal but a chief lord hold to be given to the correction of the loss, as in ff. [Digesta Iustiniani] ad l[legem] acquil[iam], l[iber] lib[er] ho[mo].[18] ‘And indeed to these things they do not have the atrocity of the crime or of wickedness, it is forgiven’ by compliance, as in ff. [Digesta Iustiniani] de reg[ulis diversis] iur[is antique], l[iber] ad ea que.[19] But according to the canons it is not excused, as argued in [liber] extra de iniuriis [et damno dato], c[apitulum] si culpa,[20] and especially by one who to God will condemn sin and even regarding idle words and cheap deeds.
[1] X 5.3.17
[2] X 3.18.4
[3] Authenticum, post C 1.2.14
[4] Cod. 4.66.2
[5] Seneca, De Beneficiis, 1.6.1
[6] LF ii 23.
[7] Dig 17.1.6.3
[8] Dig 17.1.12.11
[9] Dig 17.1.22.6
[10] Dig 45.1.26
[11] Dig 38.1.38
[12] Dig 38.1.16
[13] LF vulgate ii 28
[14] Dig 44.7.20
[15] Dig 4.8.21.7
[16] Dig 47.10.11.4
[17] Dig 11.3.1.3
[18] Dig 9.2.37
[19] Dig 50.17.157
[20] X 5.36.9
Second Section
Similarly I will aid and defend the lord himself and good things and his life with my whole self to be able to follow God and justice against all men of this world, except the person of the emperor, as in rubrica constit[utionis] Frederici de feudis, preterea si quis,[1] and of the lord pope, [Liber] extra de iur[e]iur[ando], c[apitulum] venientes,[2] either of the king or of another lord who is below, in [Liber Feudorum] rubrica hic finitur lex consuetudiness regnit incipiunt. C[apitulum] contra omnes,[3] and argued by ff. [Digesta Iustiniani] ad munic[ipalem et de incolis], l[iber] imperator.[4] But surely he will not order the lord against his own father or sons or brothers? Because it seems thus, through the word [Liber Feudorum] c[apitulum] contra omnes,[5] and argued by ff. [Digesta Iustiniani] de condic[tione] indeb[iti], l[iber] frat[er] a fratre,[6] and in ff. [Digesta Iustiniani] si servit[us] vendicetur, l[iber] altius.[7] Argument against: C[odex Iustiniani] de excu[sationibus] tu[torum], l[iber] humanitatis,[8] when a guard is not held to aid a ward/orphan against the aforementioned persons. Similarly it is said well before: ‘follow God and justice.’ For what if I know the lord to do battle irrationally? Then nevertheless I must not be held to order himself to give offense to others, in [Liber Feudorum] rubrica hic fi[nitur] l[ex] consue[tudines] reg[ni] incipiunt, c[apitulum] domino.[9] And for instance a servant is absolved who has not aided his own lady having been snatched in adultery and killed by a lover, as in ff [ Digesta Iustiniani] ad sill[anianum et claudianum senatus consultum], l[iber] si quis in gravi, ii.[10]
[1] LF vulgate ii 54 (55)
[2] X 2.24.19
[3] LF vulgate ii 28.4
[4] Dig 50.1.11
[5] LF vulgate ii 28.4
[6] Dig 12.6.38
[7] Dig 8.5.15
[8] Cod. 5.62.23
[9] LF vulgate ii 28
[10] Dig 29.5.3.3
Third Section
But is it not possible one is responsible to aid the master always whether the lord justly or unjustly does battle? I reply: the second sentence of Obertus excuses a vassal if to displease others he does not aid the lord, when openly he is to do battle irrationally to himself, and just as a servant is excused who does not aid his own lady having been seized in adultery and destroyed by a lover, as in ff. [Digesta Iustiniani] ad sillanianum et claudianum senatus consultam], l[iber] si quis in gravi, sed in hoc capitulo.[1] Of which the sentence pleases me: to the shameful or indeed faithful debt is not prolonged by the unlawful [person], as in ff [Digesta Iustiniani], l. hee demum opere,[2] and l[iber] si libertus,[3] or also the oath, as we observed above in the first tract quid sit feudum[4] and in the law unde dicatur.[5] When however the lord does battle justly or has a just cause of legal prosecution, or doubts whether he might have just or unjust [cause], then the vassal should so aid the lord, about to defend as the offense is about to be made. Truly to others about to be offended the master is not held to aid, and if he had not aided he does not grant favor [beneficium]. If however he will have wanted, he will be able to aid just as he will desire. Here are all in rubrica hic fi[nitur] lex consue[tidiness] reg[ni] incipiunt, c[apitulum] domino guerram.[6] Similarly he should aid the lord against all and also against the son, father and brother, not, however, against his other more previous lord: ‘for here is another who must be given preference’ c.e.[?] contra omnes[7] and argued using ff. [Digesta Iustiniani] de condi[ctione] inde[biti], l[iber] frat[er] a fratre.[8] Argued against in C[odex Iustiniani], de excu[sationibus] tu[torum], l[iber] humanitatis.[9] But he will not aid against the lord pope and the lord emperor or of whose persons are exempt by the oaths of faith [in] rubrica de [prohibita] feud[I alienation per fredericum], imperialem, preterea si quis,[10] et [Liber] extra de iur[e]iur[ando], c[apitulum] venientes.[11]
[1] Dig 29.5.3.3
[2] Dig 38.1.38
[3] Dig 38.1.30/27
[4] Referring to the first section
[5] Referring to the second section
[6] LF vulgata ii 28
[7] LF vulgata ii 28.4
[8] Dig 12.6.38
[9] Cod. 5.62.23
[10] LF vulgata ii 54(55).8
[11] X 2.24.19
Fourth Section
By which ways or occurrences a vassal is freed by the faithfulness of the lord
Because [it is said] “a free thing is priceless”,[1] as argued using ff. [Digesta Iustiniani] si quadru[pes] pau[periem] fe[cisse] di[catur], l[iber] fi[nis?],[2] and is “his natural power to do that which is pleasing to him,”[3] as in ff [Digesta Iustiniani] de statu ho[minum], l[iber] libertas,[4] and whichever man aspires to this, argued using ff. [Digesta Iustiniani] de statu ho[minum], l[iber] ii,[5] as this gift may be entrusted to joy’s memory by wise men, we place [freedom?] in the end of our treaties just as a vassal of the lord might be freed by faith or obedience, for the newest/youngest/most extraordinary people are retained better by memory, as argued using ff. [Digesta Iustiniani] de probationibus, l[iber] si arbiter.[6] One is therefore freed at first by the sacrament of faith if the lord is excommunicated or if he should be in a penalty of the king or of the emperor, as in libro feudorum, rubrica hic fi[nitur] l[ex] consue[tudines] regni inci[piunt], capitulum domino guerram,[7] and in decretis [Decretum Gratiani], causa xv, q. vi, nos sanctorum,[8] and until this lord will be freed from excommunication or penalty, [as in] [Liber Feudorum] e[odem] c[apitulum] domino in fi[ne].[9] It is the same if it is a heretic, Cathar or Patarene, whom after the seizure of goods which I understand they are not seized by their own law, although the law states: “they are seized,” as in C[odex Iustiniani]. de hereticis [Liber Feudorum], aut[henticum] gaçarus,[10] and [Liber] extra e. c. vergentis.[11] It is the same if he committed the crime of the law of Divine Julius, because at that time there was good by the law itself, assigned by the imperial exchequer, [as in] C[odex Iustiniani] ad l[egem] iul[iam] maiestatis l. quisquis[12] and ff. [Digesta Iustiniani] e[odem titulo] l[ibro] i and ii.[13] It is the same if the lord commits a felony against such a great kind of vassal that if the vassal may have brought about the fief he might lose [it], at that time the lord might let go ownership of the thing, the law works: [Liber Feudorum] si de feudo contentio sit int[er] dominum, c[apitulum] domino committente[14] and the law: de vasallo qui contra const[itutionem] lot[harii beneficium alienavit], c[apitulum] ex facto.[15] It is the same [if] he is liberated from obedience of the lord so he is not held to obey him, reckon[i.e. for example] if the lord might order a dishonest thing with the vassal, as in ff. [Digesta Iustiniani] de operis li[bertorum], l. hee demum,[16] or a shameful thing or unlawful thing, [as in] ff. [Digesta Iustiniani] de arbitris [receptis], l[ibro] si cum dies compromisso,[17] ff. mandati [vel contra] [libro] si vero rei turpis,[18] and abundantly notorious deeds beyond quid sit feudum,[19] nor abliged by an oath of fidelity to unlawful acts, as notorious acts beyond de forma iuramenti,[20] and argued using ff. [Digesta Iustiniani] de reg[ulis] iur[is] l[ibro] semper[21] and [in] [Liber] extra de iureiu[rando], [capitulum] quemadmodum.[22] Similarly if it is an excessive command, [Liber] extra e[odem] ti[tulo] [capitulum] veniens[23] and c[apitulum] quintavall[is].[24] For freedom is not held to obey the patron in such great [ways], [as in] ff. [Digesta Iustiniani] de operis libert[orum][25]. It is the same if it is anticipated with difficulty or is impossible, [as in] ff. [Digesta Iustiniani] q[ue] sententie sine ap[pellatione] re[scindantur] l[ibro] fi[nis],[26] and works[facit: maybe “effective”?] in [Liber] extra de iureiur[ando] [capitulum] querelam[27] and capitulum brevi,[28] and argued using ff. [Digesta Iustiniani] quarum rerum ac[tio] no[n] da[tur], l[ibro] i, q[ue] honerande.[29] It is the same if the lord does not heed what is promised to the vassal, [as in] [Liber] extra de iureiu[rando] [capitulum] pervenit,[30] and argued using ff. [Digesta Iustiniani] locati [libro] quero, cum inter,[31] and C[odex Iustiniani] de pact[is] [libro] cum proponas.[32] For it is gravely breaking faith, trust, and is unfair, [Decretum Gratiani] xxvii q. ii, agathosa.[33]
[1] Dig 50.17.106
[2] Dig 9.1
[3] Institutes of Justinian 1.3.1
[4] Dig 1.5.4
[5] Dig 1.5.2
[6] Dig 22.3.28
[7] LF vulgata ii 28
[8] Decretum Gratiani, C. 15 q. 6 c. 4
[9] LF vulgata ii 28
[10] Authenticum 1.5.19
[11] X 5.7.10
[12] Cod. 9.8.5
[13] Dig 48.4.1.2
[14] LF vulgata ii 26.24
[15] LF vulgata ii 47
[16] Dig 38.1.38
[17] Dig 4.8.21.7
[18] Dig 17.1.6.3
[19] Referring to the first section
[20] Referring to another part of the text, part of which is in the second section.
[21] Dig 50.17.34
[22] X 2.24.25
[23] X 2.24.16
[24] X 2.24.23
[25] Dig 38.1
[26] Dig 49.8.3
[27] X 2.24.10
[28] X 2.24.17
[29] Dig 44.5.1.5
[30] X 2.24.3
[31] Dig 19.2.54.1
[32] Cod 2.3.21
[33] Decretum Gratiani, C. 27 q. 2 c. 21
First Section
What is (may/should be) a fief
A fief is the concession of deeds having been made for homage, as in [Liber] Extra de symonia, c[apitulum] ex diligenti,[1] and in this differing from emphyteusis, in which it is not owed homage but an annual rent, as the [Liber] extra de emphiteutico, the c[apitulum] potuit,[2] and the C[odex Iustiniani] de sacrosanct[tis] ecc[lesiis], aut[henticum][Novellae Iustiniani] qui res iam dictas,[3] and the C[odex Iustiniani] de iure emphi[teutico], l[iber] ii.[4] Or a fief is a service, which is "the act of a benevolent person bestowing joy and taking it by bestowing"[5] as in the liber feudorum [book of fiefs], rubrica in quibus causis feudum amittatur, c[apitulum] Ubertus de orto,[6] or a fief is the concession of a thing made to someone with the transference of the privileges of lordship to hold and enjoy together with the display of some type of honest servitude. I rightly say ‘honest servitude’ because if it is otherwise not regarded with respect: suppose the fief is granted to somebody who unjustly kills or strikes or sacrileges a man or renders service to the lord meretriciously or by some other evil. Then the concession of the fief does not hold, as argued using ff. [Digesta Iustiniani] ma[ndati vel contra], l[iber] si remunerandi, rei turpis,[7]et l[iber] si vero non remu[nerandi], si adholescens,[8] et l[iber] si mandavero tibi, qui edem.[9] ‘For instance generally we know base promises or concessions to be of no importance’, as in ff. [Digesta Iustiniani] de v[erborum] ob[ligationibus], l[iber] gerneraliter.[10] When on account of this a vassal is not held by the lord to obey in base deeds or disgrace, as argued using ff. [Digesta Iustiniani] de operis lib[ertorum], l[iber] hee demum opere,[11] and l[iber] eiusartificii,[12] when openly the lord is irrationally does this or orders him, as in libro feudorum, hic fi[nnitur] lex consuetudines regni incipiunt, c[apitulum] domino guerram.[13] For neither servant nor son of the father nor citizen of the magistrate or his own rector is held to obey in baseness by the master, as in ff. [Digesta Iustiniani] de act[ionibus] et ob[ligationibus], l[iber] servus,[14] and ff. [Digesta Iustiniani] de arbitris [receptis], l[iber] si cu[m] dies, i[n] compromisso.[15] And if they are subject with regards to harsher transgressions, they are not excused for that reason which they may have made on the order of the lord, but themselves and the lord are held to the punishment of the transgression, as in ff. [Digesta Iustiniani] de iniur[iis et famosis libellis], l[iber] no[n] solu[m], procul[us].[16] Indeed it does not order the ill-will of the vassal to be increased by the order of the lord, as argued using ff. [Digesta Iustiniani] de servo cor[rupto], l[iber] i, persuadere.[17] And moreover in others they are not cruel, reckon that he gives injury to someone in their own things, if he had complied with the lord, he may be justified according to secular laws. And himself not a vassal but a chief lord hold to be given to the correction of the loss, as in ff. [Digesta Iustiniani] ad l[legem] acquil[iam], l[iber] lib[er] ho[mo].[18] ‘And indeed to these things they do not have the atrocity of the crime or of wickedness, it is forgiven’ by compliance, as in ff. [Digesta Iustiniani] de reg[ulis diversis] iur[is antique], l[iber] ad ea que.[19] But according to the canons it is not excused, as argued in [liber] extra de iniuriis [et damno dato], c[apitulum] si culpa,[20] and especially by one who to God will condemn sin and even regarding idle words and cheap deeds.
[1] X 5.3.17
[2] X 3.18.4
[3] Authenticum, post C 1.2.14
[4] Cod. 4.66.2
[5] Seneca, De Beneficiis, 1.6.1
[6] LF ii 23.
[7] Dig 17.1.6.3
[8] Dig 17.1.12.11
[9] Dig 17.1.22.6
[10] Dig 45.1.26
[11] Dig 38.1.38
[12] Dig 38.1.16
[13] LF vulgate ii 28
[14] Dig 44.7.20
[15] Dig 4.8.21.7
[16] Dig 47.10.11.4
[17] Dig 11.3.1.3
[18] Dig 9.2.37
[19] Dig 50.17.157
[20] X 5.36.9
Second Section
Similarly I will aid and defend the lord himself and good things and his life with my whole self to be able to follow God and justice against all men of this world, except the person of the emperor, as in rubrica constit[utionis] Frederici de feudis, preterea si quis,[1] and of the lord pope, [Liber] extra de iur[e]iur[ando], c[apitulum] venientes,[2] either of the king or of another lord who is below, in [Liber Feudorum] rubrica hic finitur lex consuetudiness regnit incipiunt. C[apitulum] contra omnes,[3] and argued by ff. [Digesta Iustiniani] ad munic[ipalem et de incolis], l[iber] imperator.[4] But surely he will not order the lord against his own father or sons or brothers? Because it seems thus, through the word [Liber Feudorum] c[apitulum] contra omnes,[5] and argued by ff. [Digesta Iustiniani] de condic[tione] indeb[iti], l[iber] frat[er] a fratre,[6] and in ff. [Digesta Iustiniani] si servit[us] vendicetur, l[iber] altius.[7] Argument against: C[odex Iustiniani] de excu[sationibus] tu[torum], l[iber] humanitatis,[8] when a guard is not held to aid a ward/orphan against the aforementioned persons. Similarly it is said well before: ‘follow God and justice.’ For what if I know the lord to do battle irrationally? Then nevertheless I must not be held to order himself to give offense to others, in [Liber Feudorum] rubrica hic fi[nitur] l[ex] consue[tudines] reg[ni] incipiunt, c[apitulum] domino.[9] And for instance a servant is absolved who has not aided his own lady having been snatched in adultery and killed by a lover, as in ff [ Digesta Iustiniani] ad sill[anianum et claudianum senatus consultum], l[iber] si quis in gravi, ii.[10]
[1] LF vulgate ii 54 (55)
[2] X 2.24.19
[3] LF vulgate ii 28.4
[4] Dig 50.1.11
[5] LF vulgate ii 28.4
[6] Dig 12.6.38
[7] Dig 8.5.15
[8] Cod. 5.62.23
[9] LF vulgate ii 28
[10] Dig 29.5.3.3
Third Section
But is it not possible one is responsible to aid the master always whether the lord justly or unjustly does battle? I reply: the second sentence of Obertus excuses a vassal if to displease others he does not aid the lord, when openly he is to do battle irrationally to himself, and just as a servant is excused who does not aid his own lady having been seized in adultery and destroyed by a lover, as in ff. [Digesta Iustiniani] ad sillanianum et claudianum senatus consultam], l[iber] si quis in gravi, sed in hoc capitulo.[1] Of which the sentence pleases me: to the shameful or indeed faithful debt is not prolonged by the unlawful [person], as in ff [Digesta Iustiniani], l. hee demum opere,[2] and l[iber] si libertus,[3] or also the oath, as we observed above in the first tract quid sit feudum[4] and in the law unde dicatur.[5] When however the lord does battle justly or has a just cause of legal prosecution, or doubts whether he might have just or unjust [cause], then the vassal should so aid the lord, about to defend as the offense is about to be made. Truly to others about to be offended the master is not held to aid, and if he had not aided he does not grant favor [beneficium]. If however he will have wanted, he will be able to aid just as he will desire. Here are all in rubrica hic fi[nitur] lex consue[tidiness] reg[ni] incipiunt, c[apitulum] domino guerram.[6] Similarly he should aid the lord against all and also against the son, father and brother, not, however, against his other more previous lord: ‘for here is another who must be given preference’ c.e.[?] contra omnes[7] and argued using ff. [Digesta Iustiniani] de condi[ctione] inde[biti], l[iber] frat[er] a fratre.[8] Argued against in C[odex Iustiniani], de excu[sationibus] tu[torum], l[iber] humanitatis.[9] But he will not aid against the lord pope and the lord emperor or of whose persons are exempt by the oaths of faith [in] rubrica de [prohibita] feud[I alienation per fredericum], imperialem, preterea si quis,[10] et [Liber] extra de iur[e]iur[ando], c[apitulum] venientes.[11]
[1] Dig 29.5.3.3
[2] Dig 38.1.38
[3] Dig 38.1.30/27
[4] Referring to the first section
[5] Referring to the second section
[6] LF vulgata ii 28
[7] LF vulgata ii 28.4
[8] Dig 12.6.38
[9] Cod. 5.62.23
[10] LF vulgata ii 54(55).8
[11] X 2.24.19
Fourth Section
By which ways or occurrences a vassal is freed by the faithfulness of the lord
Because [it is said] “a free thing is priceless”,[1] as argued using ff. [Digesta Iustiniani] si quadru[pes] pau[periem] fe[cisse] di[catur], l[iber] fi[nis?],[2] and is “his natural power to do that which is pleasing to him,”[3] as in ff [Digesta Iustiniani] de statu ho[minum], l[iber] libertas,[4] and whichever man aspires to this, argued using ff. [Digesta Iustiniani] de statu ho[minum], l[iber] ii,[5] as this gift may be entrusted to joy’s memory by wise men, we place [freedom?] in the end of our treaties just as a vassal of the lord might be freed by faith or obedience, for the newest/youngest/most extraordinary people are retained better by memory, as argued using ff. [Digesta Iustiniani] de probationibus, l[iber] si arbiter.[6] One is therefore freed at first by the sacrament of faith if the lord is excommunicated or if he should be in a penalty of the king or of the emperor, as in libro feudorum, rubrica hic fi[nitur] l[ex] consue[tudines] regni inci[piunt], capitulum domino guerram,[7] and in decretis [Decretum Gratiani], causa xv, q. vi, nos sanctorum,[8] and until this lord will be freed from excommunication or penalty, [as in] [Liber Feudorum] e[odem] c[apitulum] domino in fi[ne].[9] It is the same if it is a heretic, Cathar or Patarene, whom after the seizure of goods which I understand they are not seized by their own law, although the law states: “they are seized,” as in C[odex Iustiniani]. de hereticis [Liber Feudorum], aut[henticum] gaçarus,[10] and [Liber] extra e. c. vergentis.[11] It is the same if he committed the crime of the law of Divine Julius, because at that time there was good by the law itself, assigned by the imperial exchequer, [as in] C[odex Iustiniani] ad l[egem] iul[iam] maiestatis l. quisquis[12] and ff. [Digesta Iustiniani] e[odem titulo] l[ibro] i and ii.[13] It is the same if the lord commits a felony against such a great kind of vassal that if the vassal may have brought about the fief he might lose [it], at that time the lord might let go ownership of the thing, the law works: [Liber Feudorum] si de feudo contentio sit int[er] dominum, c[apitulum] domino committente[14] and the law: de vasallo qui contra const[itutionem] lot[harii beneficium alienavit], c[apitulum] ex facto.[15] It is the same [if] he is liberated from obedience of the lord so he is not held to obey him, reckon[i.e. for example] if the lord might order a dishonest thing with the vassal, as in ff. [Digesta Iustiniani] de operis li[bertorum], l. hee demum,[16] or a shameful thing or unlawful thing, [as in] ff. [Digesta Iustiniani] de arbitris [receptis], l[ibro] si cum dies compromisso,[17] ff. mandati [vel contra] [libro] si vero rei turpis,[18] and abundantly notorious deeds beyond quid sit feudum,[19] nor abliged by an oath of fidelity to unlawful acts, as notorious acts beyond de forma iuramenti,[20] and argued using ff. [Digesta Iustiniani] de reg[ulis] iur[is] l[ibro] semper[21] and [in] [Liber] extra de iureiu[rando], [capitulum] quemadmodum.[22] Similarly if it is an excessive command, [Liber] extra e[odem] ti[tulo] [capitulum] veniens[23] and c[apitulum] quintavall[is].[24] For freedom is not held to obey the patron in such great [ways], [as in] ff. [Digesta Iustiniani] de operis libert[orum][25]. It is the same if it is anticipated with difficulty or is impossible, [as in] ff. [Digesta Iustiniani] q[ue] sententie sine ap[pellatione] re[scindantur] l[ibro] fi[nis],[26] and works[facit: maybe “effective”?] in [Liber] extra de iureiur[ando] [capitulum] querelam[27] and capitulum brevi,[28] and argued using ff. [Digesta Iustiniani] quarum rerum ac[tio] no[n] da[tur], l[ibro] i, q[ue] honerande.[29] It is the same if the lord does not heed what is promised to the vassal, [as in] [Liber] extra de iureiu[rando] [capitulum] pervenit,[30] and argued using ff. [Digesta Iustiniani] locati [libro] quero, cum inter,[31] and C[odex Iustiniani] de pact[is] [libro] cum proponas.[32] For it is gravely breaking faith, trust, and is unfair, [Decretum Gratiani] xxvii q. ii, agathosa.[33]
[1] Dig 50.17.106
[2] Dig 9.1
[3] Institutes of Justinian 1.3.1
[4] Dig 1.5.4
[5] Dig 1.5.2
[6] Dig 22.3.28
[7] LF vulgata ii 28
[8] Decretum Gratiani, C. 15 q. 6 c. 4
[9] LF vulgata ii 28
[10] Authenticum 1.5.19
[11] X 5.7.10
[12] Cod. 9.8.5
[13] Dig 48.4.1.2
[14] LF vulgata ii 26.24
[15] LF vulgata ii 47
[16] Dig 38.1.38
[17] Dig 4.8.21.7
[18] Dig 17.1.6.3
[19] Referring to the first section
[20] Referring to another part of the text, part of which is in the second section.
[21] Dig 50.17.34
[22] X 2.24.25
[23] X 2.24.16
[24] X 2.24.23
[25] Dig 38.1
[26] Dig 49.8.3
[27] X 2.24.10
[28] X 2.24.17
[29] Dig 44.5.1.5
[30] X 2.24.3
[31] Dig 19.2.54.1
[32] Cod 2.3.21
[33] Decretum Gratiani, C. 27 q. 2 c. 21
Notes
Introductions to the References
Ut – “As in” - This has many translations, but the one used here is the most likely in this case. This would differ from just using the ablative or using the Latin word in by suggesting the same content in the referenced section is not directly found in that text, but contains similar wording regarding the same type of law.
Ut ar.(gumentum) – “as argued using” – This wording suggests the referenced text has argued the point in the past, but does not necessarily contain the same wording or even the law itself.
Ar.(gumentum) – “Argued in” – This wording suggests the referenced text has the argument itself in the text.
Ar.(gumentum) contra – “Argument against” – This wording suggests the referenced text contains an argument against the law in question, but does not necessarily argue against it within that text.
In – “In” – The Latin for “in” can stress where the item is found. It is unclear why this would be used in some cases when an ablative is used in others.
No word (ablative use of rubrica (law))- Latin grammar does not require a preposition and instead can use the ablative case to state that something is “in” that word. When none of the above words are used to point to where something is found, the location is implied through the ablative of the word rubrica - “in the law…”.
No word – This occurs primarily in the fourth section. No preposition or introductory words are given where these laws are also found. The “in” has been given to help with reading the content but provided in brackets to preserve authenticity of the material.
Links to the References and their Abbreviations
Decretum Gratiani
Cod - Codex Justiniani
Dig - Digestum Justiniani
X - Liber Extra
LF Vulgata - Libri Feudorum
Authenticum
Institutes of Justinian
Introductions to the References
Ut – “As in” - This has many translations, but the one used here is the most likely in this case. This would differ from just using the ablative or using the Latin word in by suggesting the same content in the referenced section is not directly found in that text, but contains similar wording regarding the same type of law.
Ut ar.(gumentum) – “as argued using” – This wording suggests the referenced text has argued the point in the past, but does not necessarily contain the same wording or even the law itself.
Ar.(gumentum) – “Argued in” – This wording suggests the referenced text has the argument itself in the text.
Ar.(gumentum) contra – “Argument against” – This wording suggests the referenced text contains an argument against the law in question, but does not necessarily argue against it within that text.
In – “In” – The Latin for “in” can stress where the item is found. It is unclear why this would be used in some cases when an ablative is used in others.
No word (ablative use of rubrica (law))- Latin grammar does not require a preposition and instead can use the ablative case to state that something is “in” that word. When none of the above words are used to point to where something is found, the location is implied through the ablative of the word rubrica - “in the law…”.
No word – This occurs primarily in the fourth section. No preposition or introductory words are given where these laws are also found. The “in” has been given to help with reading the content but provided in brackets to preserve authenticity of the material.
Links to the References and their Abbreviations
Decretum Gratiani
Cod - Codex Justiniani
Dig - Digestum Justiniani
X - Liber Extra
LF Vulgata - Libri Feudorum
Authenticum
Institutes of Justinian
Introduction to the text by Dr. Jonathan Rubin, Bar Ilan University - jonathan.rubin1@mail.huji.ac.il
Translated with a reading guide and notes by Martin Nelson, Fordham University - mnelson55@fordham.edu
Translated with a reading guide and notes by Martin Nelson, Fordham University - mnelson55@fordham.edu
