The Ius Decretalium and the Development of the Law of Succession in Medieval Europe. Some Examples from Denmark and Sweden (XII–XIII C.)

It is in this perspective that the ‘system of the ius commune’ is mentioned. This definition can be traced back to Francesco Calasso. See Calasso, Francesco. 1954. Medio Evo del diritto. I. Le fonti. Milano: Giuffrè, 470. Among those who have gathered together the teachings of Calasso, Manlio Bellomo has elaborated on and developed the idea of the ‘system’ in the light of studies carried out on particular multiple themes. His overall vision finds a concise form in Bellomo, Manlio. 1998 (8th ed.). L’Europa del diritto comune. Roma: Il Cigno Galileo Galilei, 163–215. The book has deserved a series of translations which have helped to spread the perspective of the ‘system’ in non Italian academic spheres. English translation: Bellomo, Manlio. 1995. The Common Legal Past of Europe. 1000‐1800. Washington D.C.: Catholic University of America Press; Spanish translation: Bellomo, Manlio. 1999 (2nd ed.). La Europa del derecho común. Roma: Il Cigno Galileo Galilei; German translation: Bellomo, Manlio. 2005. Europäische Rechtseinheit. Grundlagen und System des Ius Commune. München: Beck; new revised edition, Bellomo, Manlio. 2016. L’Europa del diritto comune. La memoria e la storia. Leonforte: Euno, 165–227. The strict link between ius commune and iura propria which must always be borne in mind, as must the more general link between theory and practice, leads us to consider misleading the idea of ius commune as ‘learned law’: see Bellomo, Manlio. 1994. Parlando di ius commune. Rivista Internazionale di Diritto Comune 5: 187–195; Pennington, Kenneth. 1994. Learned Law, Droit Savant, Gelehrtes Recht: The Tyranny of a Concept. Rivista Internazionale di Diritto Comune 5: 197–209. Cf. also Condorelli, Orazio. 2010. Ius e lex nel sistema del diritto comune (secoli XIV–XV). In Fidora, Alexander, Lutz-Bachmann, Matthias, and Wagner, Andreas (eds.), Lex und Ius. Lex and Ius. Beiträge zur Begründung des Rechts in der Philosophie des Mittelalters und der Frühen Neuzeit, 27–88. Bad Cannstatt: Fromman Holzboog.

I quote the text from the version handed down in the Decretales of Gregory IX, X.1.4.2 (= Comp.III.1.3.1), where the recipient is erroneously indicated as the “archbishop of Lyon” (Corpus Iuris Canonici. 1879‐1881. Ed. Friedberg, Aemilius. voll. I–II. Leipzig: Tauchnitz): “Innocentius III. Archiepiscopo et Capitulo Lugdunensi. Ex literis, † quas tu nobis, frater archiepiscope, destinasti, intelleximus manifeste, quod regnum Daciae, quantum ad ea, quae ad ius fori contingunt, consuetudinibus suis et institutionibus regum suorum omnino regatur. Unde nullum usum testamentorum illius provinciae habere contingit, qui alibi in ultimis decedentium voluntatibus secundum legalem observantiam custoditur. Si vero quis possessiones aliquas claustris vel aliis religiosis locis in bona valetudine vel ultima voluntate constitutus pro suorum vult remedio peccatorum conferre, hanc ecclesiae conferendi formam esse proponitis, quod in huiusmodi donationibus modicum terrae consuevit in manu accipere, vel in extremitate pallii, quod manu episcopi vel cuiuslibet alterius praelati ecclesiae sustinetur, aut super ipsum altare aliquo involutum panniculo cum debita humilitate ponendum sub testimonio videntium et audientium, sub dicta forma, quae scotatio vulgariter appellatur. Verum quia huiusmodi donatio malitiose a quibusdam cavillatoribus, sicut asseris, impeditur, a nobis humiliter postulasti, ne loca religiosa et ecclesiae, quibus multae possessiones sub scotatione huiusmodi sunt collatae, ab aliquibus possint vel debeant temere perturbari, paterna debemus sollicitudine providere. Nolentes igitur, ut tales constitutiones, quas diuturnitas temporis, ut asseris, observavit, et usus consuetudinis hactenus approbatae retinuit, temeritate qualibet infirmentur, Discretioni vestrae per apostolica scripta mandamus, quatenus donationes eorum, quae sub obtentu consuetudinis claustris, ecclesiis vel quibuslibet locis religiosis pie ac provide conferuntur vel etiam sunt collata, faciatis irrevocabiliter observari, quum huiusmodi signum, quod scotatio dicitur, non tam factae donationis, quam traditae possessionis sit evidens argumentum, si quos contradictores inveneritis aut rebelles, auctoritate freti apostolica per censuram ecclesiasticam, monitione praemissa, sublato appellationis obstaculo, compescentes. [Dat. Lat. XVI. Kal. Dec. 1198.]”. The text handed down in the Papal Register is published in Die Register Innocenz’ III. I. Pontifikatsjahr, 1198/99. 1964. Eds. Hageneder, Othmar, and Haidacher, Anton. Graz-Köln: Böhlau, 632–633, n. 422. In the Papal Register the letter is addressed “Archiepiscopo et capitulo Lundensibus”. There are slight variations compared to the text of the Liber Extra, among which I have highlighted the most significant (the Register’s text is in italics): sub dicta forma, quae scotatio vulgariter appellatur] forma donationis huiusmodi subsequente, que scotatio vulgariter appellatur; irrevocabiliter] irrevocabiles. See also Potthast, Augustus. 1874. Regesta Pontificum romanorum. Berolini: R. De Decker 1874 (hereafter only: Potthast), n. 424.

Wolter, Heinz. 1980. Absalon, 1. Absalon. In Lexikon des Mittelalters 1, 55. München und Zürich: Artemis-&-Winkler-Verlag; Friis-Jensen, Karsten, and Skovgaard-Petersen, Inge (eds.). 2000. Archbishop Absalon of Lund and his World. Roskilde: Roskilde Museums Forlag; Vogt, Helle. 2015. Absalon: évêque, guerrier et le Richelieu du Danemark. In Barrow, Julia, Delivré, Fabrice, and Gazeau, Veronique (eds.), Autour de Lanfranc (1010‐2010). Réforme et réformateurs dans l’Europe du Nord-Ouest (XIe‐XIIe siècles), 329–342. Caen: PUC. In order to place the people and themes dealt with here in the context of the events of the political and ecclesiastical history of the Kingdom of Denmark, the following works are useful: Nielsen, Torben K., and Jensen, Knut V. 1998. Pope Innocent III and Denmark. In Sommerlechner, Andrea (ed.), Innocenzo III. Urbs et Orbis. Atti del Congresso Internazionale (Roma, 9–15 settembre 1998) II, 1133–1168. Roma: Società Romana di Storia Patria; a more detailed overview in Nielsen, Torben K. 2002. Pope Innocent III and Denmark, Sweden and Norway. Analecta Romana Instituti Danici 28: 7–32; Skovgaard-Petersen, Inge. 2003. Early Political Organisation. b) The Making of the Danish Kingdom. In Helle, Knut (ed.), The Cambridge History of Scandinavia. I. Prehistory to 1520, 168–183. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; Skovgaard-Petersen, Inge. 2003. Towards nationally organised systems of Government. b) The Danish Kingdom: Consolidation and Disintegration. In Helle, Knut (ed.), The Cambridge History of Scandinavia. I. Prehistory to 1520, 353–368. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. See also Perron, Anthony. 2003. Metropolitan Might and Papal Power on the Latin-Christian Frontier: Transforming the Danish Church around the Time of the Fourth Lateran Council. The Catholic Historical Review 89.2: 182–212; Gelting, Michael. 2007. The Kingdom of Denmark. In Berend, Nora (ed.), Christianization and the Rise of Christian Monarchy: Scandinavia, Central Europe and Rus’ c. 900–1200, 73–120. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

In this aspect customary Danish law places itself in the context of Germanic law, in which, originally, the freedom to leave a testament was excluded. As the Roman historian Tacitus stated (Germania, cap. 20): “Heredes tamen successoresque sui cuique liberi, et nullum testamentum”. This principle began to break up in the centuries of the High Middle Ages, also due to the effect of practices inspired by the Christian religion (donationes pro anima): Ogris, Werner. 1998. Testament. In Handwörterbuch zur deutschen Rechtsgeschichte 5, 152–165. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag, 153–155. On the process of affirmation of the principle of libertas testandi in Germany see Landau, Peter. 1995. La libertà di testare nella storia del diritto tedesco del tardo Medioevo e della prima età moderna. Rivista Internazionale di Diritto Comune 6: 29–48; Landau, Peter. 1997. Die Testierfreiheit in der Geschichte des Deutschen Rechts im späten Mittelalter und in der frühen Neuzeit. Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, Kanonistische Abteilung 114: 56–72. See also Padovani, Andrea. 1993. Le fondamenta giuridiche del testamento nella dottrina medioevale. In Actes à cause de mort – Acts of Last Will. III. Europe médiévale et moderne (Recueils de la Societé Jean Bodin pour l’histoire comparative des institutions 61), 173–193. Bruxelles: De Boeck Université.

On the legal qualification of the recipient of such bequests (locus venerabilis, venerabilis domus, etc.) see Conte, Emanuele. 2009. I diritti degli enti fra alto e basso medioevo. In Conte, Emanuele. 2009. Diritto comune. Storia e storiografia di un sistema dinamico, 157–188. Bologna: Il Mulino.

Here I must leave out of my consideration any in-depth examination of the figure of the scotatio. The classic germanistic doctrine defines it as an “agreement” (Geschäft) through which possession (Gewere) of a thing is transferred by the bodily deliverance of the thing itself: in this sense Amira, Karl von. 1913 (3rd ed.). Grundriss des germanischen Rechts. Strassburg: Karl J. Trübner, 222–223. It is to the Medieval Norwegian reality that the essay by Taranger, Absalon. 1913. The Meaning of the Words Oðal and Skeyting in the Old Laws of Norway. In Vinogradoff, Paul (ed.), Essays in Legal History Read Before the International Congress of Historical Studies Held in London in 1913, 159–173. London-Edinburgh et all.: Oxford University Press, 159–160. With subtle distinction Taranger notes that while common opinion defines the scotatio as “transfer of property in land”, originally it was “the legal form for transfer of oðal-right in oðal-land”. Oðal, then, means “family-ownership of land”, but originally meant simply “ownership in land and land as an object of such ownership”. Further literature on this theme is given by Merello Altea, Maria Grazia. 1963. Scotatio. A proposito della dottrina del possesso nel diritto canonico medievale (Università di Genova, Annali della Facoltà di Giurisprudenza II.1). Milano: Giuffrè, 13–28. On the use of the scotatio in the Danish context, with a mention of the decretal Ex litteris, see Vogt, Helle. 2010. The Function of Kinship in Medieval Nordic Legislation (Medieval Law and Its Practice 9). Leiden: Brill, 69–70; and the introduction of the volume The Danish Medieval Laws. The Laws of Scania, Zealand and Jutland. 2016. Eds. Tamm, Ditlev, and Vogt, Helle (Routledge Medieval Translations, Medieval Nordic Laws). London-New York: Routledge, 28–29. What understanding of the scotatio a learned XIIIth century man would have emerges from the Liber Legis Scaniae by Anders Sunesen: cf. below, § 5.

See Comp.III.1.3.1 and X.1.4.2.

According to Landau, Peter. 2005. The Importance of Classical Canon Law in Scandinavia in the 12th and 13th Centuries. In Tamm, Ditlev, and Vogt, Helle (eds.), How Nordic are the Nordic Medieval Laws? (Medieval Legal History 1), 24–39. Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen Press, 36–37, “this decretal of Innocent III is probably the most important text allowing toleration of regional customs in canon law—it is placed in the very beginning of the title ‘de consuetudine’ in the Liber Extra and shows how the challenge of legal customs in Scandinavia influenced the structures of classical canon law”. See also Landau, Peter. 1992. Ius commune und ius proprium aus der Sicht des klassischen kanonischen Rechts. In Hamza, Gabor, and Földi, András (eds.), Studien zum römischen Recht in Europa, 338–360. Budapest: Alfa Ipari, now in Landau, Peter. 2013. Europäische Rechtsgeschichte und kanonisches Rech im Mittelalter, 307–320. Badenweiler: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Bachmann, 317.

Johannes Teutonicus (around 1215), Apparatus in Comp.III.1.3.1, v. nullum usum (Johannes Teutonicus. 1981. Johannis Teutonici Apparatus glossarum in Compilationem tertiam, ed. Pennington, Kenneth, I [Monumenta Iuris Canonici, Series A: Corpus Glossatorum 3]. Città del Vaticano: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 25): “Ex hoc sequitur quos omnes Dacii sunt furiosi vel rustici vel milites. Furiosi enim non condunt testamentum, ut infra de success. ab intestato Cum dilectus (Comp.III.3.20.1, X.3.27.3); similiter rustici et milites non servant solempnitates testamentorum, ut instit. de testa. mil. § ii (Inst.2.11.2), C. de testa. Hac consultissima (C.6.23.21). jo.”.

Bernardus Parmensis († 1266), Apparatus in X.1.4.2, casus (in Decretales d. Gregorii Papae IX… una cum glossis restitutis. 1582. Romae: In Aedibus Populi Romani): “Quidam malitiose nitebantur huiusmodi donationes infringere, pro eo quod solennitas testimoniorum in huiusmodi ultimis voluntatibus non servabatur”.

Tancredus Bononiensis (around 1220), Apparatus in Comp.III, 1.3.1, v. secundum legalem observantiam (manuscript, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. lat. 1377, 152ra, new numbering): “secundum legalem observantiam regulariter exiguntur VII testes, ut C. de testamentis Si unus (C.6.23.12), in codicillis vero exiguntur V testes, ut C. de codicillis l. ultima (C.6.36.8.3). Hec sollempnitates remittuntur (iudic add. et canc. ms.) rusticis in castris et vicis propter penuriam hominum, scil. ut sufficiant V testes in testamentis eorum, ut C. de testamentis l. ultima (C.6.23.31). Item in militibus hec sollempnitas remittitur donec sunt expedicione occupati, alias non, ut C. de militari testamento l. Milites, Ne quidam (C.6.21.15 e 17) et Instit. eod. tit. rubr. I § i (Inst.2.11). Alia est observantia canonica, que habetur supra de testamentis Cum omnes et c. Relatum…”.

See respectively X.3.26, de testamentis et ultimis voluntatibus, c. 10 and 11 (= Comp.I.3.22.9 and 10). See Schulte, Johann Friedrich. 1851. Über die Testamenta ad pias causas nach canonischem Rechte, besonders dem c. 11 X. de test. et ult. volunt. (III, 26). Zeitschrift für Civilrecht und Process, neue Folge 8: 157–232; Brandileone, Francesco. 1931. I lasciti per l’anima e la loro trasformazione (original publication 1911). In Brandileone, Francesco, Scritti di storia del diritto privato italiano I, 363–476. Bologna: Zanichelli; Bussi, Emilio. 1939. La formazione dei dogmi di diritto privato nel diritto comune (contratti, successioni, diritti di famiglia). Padova: Cedam, 160–163, 183–187; Migliorino, Francesco. 1992. In terris Ecclesiae. Frammenti di Ius proprium nel Liber Extra di Gregorio IX. Roma: Il Cigno Galileo Galilei, 145–175.

In the margin of the decretal Ex litteris the particularity is marked by Johannes Teutonicus, Apparatus in Comp.III.1.3.1, v. religiosis locis (ed. Pennington 1981, as n. 9) 25: “In hiis enim que locis religiosis relinquuntur non requiritur solempnitas testamentorum, ut supra de testa. Relatum lib. I (Comp.I.3.22.10, X.3.26.11)”. Cf. Laurentius Hispanus: “quia legatum relictum ecclesie probari potest duobus vel tribus testibus, ut supra de testamentis Relatum c. (l. ms.) I, etiam ubi observatur testandi sollemnitas. La.” (the gloss is reported in Tancredus’ Apparatus in Comp.III.1.3.1, v. locis religiosis: Vat. lat. 1377, 152rb, new numbering.)

On the meaning of the decretal Ex litteris in the development of medieval ownership doctrine see Merello Altea 1963, 29–35, and Bierman, cited below, note 18.

Placentinus († around 1181/82), Summa Codicis ad C.7.32, de acquirenda et retinenda possessione (Placentinus. 1536/1962. In Codicis dn. Iustiniani sacratissimi principis ex repetita praelectione libros IX summa. Moguntiae: ex aedibus Ioannis Scheffer, repr. Torino: Bottega di Erasmo, 330): “Duobus modis interventibus(!) possessio acquiritur, traditione et quasi traditione. Traditione, ut si rem quam mihi vendideris, tradis, vel ex causa simili… Item quasi traditione adquiritur possessio duntaxat oculis et affectu. In his puta que per magnitudinem ponderis baiulari non possint. Idem si venditor mihi mercatum fundum de turre sua meave et maxime mea mihi monstraverit illum, nec enim tunc minus possidere cepi, quasi pedem finibus intulissem, ut ff. eod. l. Quod meo (D.41.2.18)”. Cf. also the Summa Tubingensis (continuation of the Summa of Rogerius on the Codex), ad C.7.32 (Summa Tubingensis. 1913. In Rogerii Summa Codicis, editio altera emendata, ed. Palmieri, Giovanni Battista [Scripta anecdota Glossatorum I, Bibliotheca Iuridica Medii Aevi, ed. Gaudenzi, Augusto]. Bononiae: ex aedibus Angeli Gandolphi typis societatis Azzoguidianae, 182): “Ex interpretatione autem civilis iuris non semper necesse est corpore et actu apprehendere possessionem, sed quandoque oculis et affectu rem tue custodie subicis. Quo facto possessio, quodam genere animi metita, seu manu longa tibi tradita et apprehensa a te videtur. Quod in columnis, et marmoribus, et ceteris, que propter magnitudinem sui moveri non possunt, idem in acervo iuris est”.

Azo († ante 1233), Summa Codicis, ad C.7.32, de acquirenda et retinenda possessione (Azo. 1506/1966. Summa Azonis cum emendatione nouiter reuisa. Papiae: per Bernardinum et Ambrosius fratres de Rouellis, repr. Augustae Taurinorum: ex Officina Erasmiana, 206a–206b, new numbering): “Est autem possessio corporalis rei detentio, corporis et animi, item iuris adminiculo concurrente… Ideo dixi corporis et animi adminiculo concurrente, quia aliter non acquiritur possessio nisi corpore et animo, neque per se animo, aut per se corpore, ut ff. eod. l. Possideri (D.41.2.3) in principio et l. Quemadmodum (D.41.2.8). Sed quod dixi de corpore non est intelligendum ut semper corpore sit necessarium vel pedibus rei insistere. Sufficit enim visus oculorum et animi affectus cum tradentis voluntate ad acquirenda possessionem, ut ff. eod. l. Quod meo (in eo ed. male) (D.41.2.18) et l. I § pen. (D.41.2.1.21)”.

According to Kenneth Pennington, “no matter who drafted Innocent’s letters, the Ius commune percolates through them. His most significant decretals shaped the doctrine and substance European law for centuries afterwards” (Pennington, Kenneth. 2000. Innocent III and the Ius commune. In Helmholz, Richard, Mikat, Paul, Müller, Jörg, and Stolleis, Michael [eds.], Grundlagen des Rechts: Festschrift für Peter Landau zum 65. Geburtstag [Rechts- und Staatswissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Görres-Gesellschaft, Neue Folge 91]. Paderborn: Schöning, 349–366).

On this subject see Biermann, Johannes. 1891. Traditio ficta. Ein Beitrag zum heutigen Civilrecht auf geschichtlicher Grundlage. Stuttgart: F. Enke, in particular 132–135 on the case emerging from the decretal Ex litteris. On the scotatio nothing is to be found in the long essay by Riccobono, Salvatore. 1912‐1913. Traditio ficta. Zeitschrift der Savigny Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, Romanistiche Abteilung 33: 259–304; 34: 159–255, in which, however, doctrines of medieval jurists on ownership are mentioned.

Johannes Teutonicus, Apparatus in Comp.III.1.3.1, v. huiusmodi signum (ed. Pennington, as n. 9) 25: “huiusmodi signum: Sic anulus est signum investiture, ut infra de his que fiunt a maiori parte ca. Ex ore (Comp.III.3.12.1, X.3.11.3), et investitura est signum tradite possessionis, ut infra de donat. Per tuas (Comp.III.3.18.2, X.3.24.5). Sic augmentatio corone est signum rerum oblatarum, infra de success. ab intest. Cum dilectus (Comp.III.3.20.1, X.3.27.3); sic anulus est signum matrimonii, XXX q. V Femine (C.30 q.5 c.7); sic instrumentorum traditio est signum renuntiationis querele, ut supra de maior. et obed. Sane, lib. II (Comp.II.1.15.1, X.1.9.7). Sic ergo apprehenditur quandoque possessio sine re ut per claves, ff. de contrahen. empt. Clavibus (D.18.1.74), per instrumenta, ut C. de donat. l. I. (C.8.53(54).1), per visum, ut ff. de acquir. poss. Quod meo (D.41.2.18); item cum quis rem suam vult possidere nomine alterius, ff. de rei vind. Quedam (D.6.1.77)”. Cf. Bernardus Parmensis, Apparatus in X.1.4.2, v. signum.

C.1.2.23, de sacrosanctis ecclesiis, l. Ut inter divinum.

This doctrine seems already consolidated in the sixties of the XIIth Century. Cf. Placentinus, Summa Codicis, ad C.1, de sacrosanctis ecclesiis (as n. 15) 3: “Item secundum pene omnium sententiam, exemptione donationeque etiam non insecuta traditione, ecclesie vindicatio directa vel utilis datur, ut C. eod. l. ultima, ergo et dominium acquiritur, ut C. eod. l. ultima (C.1.2.23)”. In the same sense Azo, Summa Codicis, C.1 de sacrosanctis ecclesiis (as n. 16) 3b: “in rebus venditis et donatis <ecclesia> habet utilem rei vindicationem etiam sine traditione”.

Johannes Teutonicus, Apparatus in Comp.III.1.3.1, v. huiusmodi signum (ed. Pennington, as n. 9) 25: “Hoc tamen certum est, quod licet ecclesia non apprehendat possessionem rei sibi collate, quod dominium sine possessione adipiscitur, ut C. de sacrosan. eccles. Ut inter (C.1.2.[5].23[20]). jo.” Tancredus qualifies this prerogative as a privilegium. Tancredus, Apparatus in Comp.III.1.3.1, v. tradite (Vat. lat. 1377, 152ra–152rb, new numbering): “privilegium ec(clesie) est quod de re sibi data vel adiudicata competit sibi rei vendicatio quamvis nunquam habuerit illius rei possessio, ut C. de sacrosanctis ecclesiis l. ultima, quod in aliis locum non habet, C. de rei vindi. Servum. T.”. This teaching converges in the ordinary apparatus of Bernardus Parmensis in X.1.4.2, v. signum.

Bernardus Parmensis, Apparatus in X.1.4.2, v. consuetudinis (as n. 10): “Huiusmodi donatio valeret, etiam si consuetudo super hoc non esset”.

Innocentius IV, Commentaria in X.1.4.2, v. Ex litteris (Innocentius IV. 1570. Commentaria Innocentii Quarti Pont. maximi super libros quinque Decretalium. Francofurti ad Moenum: Feyerabendt Sigismundus, 32rb).

Innocentius IV, Commentaria in X.1.4.2, v. possessiones (as n. 24) 32rb: “hic habes quod possessio transfertur sine apprehensione rei”.

Antonius de Butrio, Commentaria in X.1.4.2 (Antonius de Butrio. 1578. Super prima primi Decretalium. Venetiis, apud Iuntas, 69va–70rb, nn. 1–4): “Valet consuetudo per quam sine solennitate legali dominia rerum et ipsarum possessio ad ecclesiam transferuntur… Pro evidentia premitte, quod ad acquirendam possessionem regulariter requiratur animus et corpus: hoc est, quod interveniat actualis traditio rei… Sunt tamen a iure quidam actus terminati, qui vocantur actus ficti, ex quibus transfertur artificialiter possessio… Item premitto quod regulariter dominium non transfertur sine traditione et sine titulo, ut l. Traditionem C. de pactis. Fallit in ecclesia, ubi sufficit titulus, ut l. finali C. de sacrosanctis ecclesiis”.

Nicolaus de Tudeschis (Abbas Panormitanus), Commentaria in X.1.4.2 (Nicolaus de Tudeschis. 1582/2000. Commentaria in Decretales. Venetiis, apud Iuntas; electronic version on CD-ROM, ed. Bellomo, Barbara, intr. Pennington, Kenneth. Roma: Il Cigno Galileo Galilei, 96vb–97ra, n. 3).

Baldus de Ubaldis, Commentaria in X.1.4.2 (Baldus de Ubaldis. 1551. Super Decretalibus. Lugduni: excudebat Petrus Fradin, 65va): “Valet consuetudo per quam possessiones in ecclesiam et alia pia loca transferuntur per signum investiture sine solennitate legali. Sicut arra est argumentum tituli, sic investitura est argumentum possessionis tradite animo et destinatione tradentis et recipientis. Consuetudo dat possessionem, hoc dicit, etiam per actum improprium ut per traditionem sigilli, vel alterius rei”. If already in the past the scotatio had been likened to the investitura (cf. for instance Johannes Teutonicus, supra, note 19), now with Baldus the two figures seem to bond together. On the investitura as a “juridical act which bestows the Gewere-vestitura on a subject” see Conte, Emanuele. 2009. Gewere, vestitura, spolium: un’ipotesi di interpretazione. In Condorelli, Orazio, Roumy, Franck, and Schmoeckel, Mathias (eds.), Der Einfluss der Kanonistik auf die europäische Rechtskultur. I. Zivil- und Zivilprozessrecht (Norm und Struktur 37.1), 169–191. Köln-Weimar-Wien: Böhlau, 170.

Baldus de Ubaldis, Commentaria in C.1.2.23, C. de sacrosanctis ecclesiis, l. Ut inter divinum (Baldus de Ubaldis. 1596. In primum, secundum, et tertium Codicis Libris Commentaria. Venetiis: apud Iuntas, 32va, nn. 13–14): “Unum tamen non est omittendum, quod statutum et consuetudo possunt transferre possessionem sine apprehensione, et ista appellabitur civilissima possessio, de qua non fit mentio, nisi in uno loco, scil. in c. Ex litteris extra de consuetudine”.

On the decretal Ex litteris and on the sources used in this section Ditlev Tamm goes into some depth in Tamm, Ditlev. 1993. Testaments and Other Dispositions mortis causa. The Nordic Countries (Denmark, Norway and Sweden). In Actes à cause de mort – Acts of Last Will. II. Europe médiévale et moderne, Medieval and Modern Europe (Recueils de la Société Jean Bodin 60), 9–19. Bruxelles: De Boeck Université, 10–13. On the basic lines of the law of successions in Scandinavian laws see The Danish Medieval Laws (eds. Tamm and Vogt 2016, as n. 6) 27–28, and Ehrhardt, Harald. 1986. Erbrecht. II. Skandinavien. In Lexikon des Mittelalters 3, 2107–2109. München und Zürich: Artemis-&-Winkler-Verlag: the general tendency is to leave undivided the land ownings as the most important hereditary factors of a family’s wealth. A breakdown of this system happened due to the Church and to the possibility to dispose in a testament of part of the hereditament. Cf. also Ehrhardt, Harald. 1997. Testament [3] Skandinavien. In Lexikon des Mittelalters 8, 567–568. München und Zürich: Artemis-&-Winkler-Verlag. In general, on the role of canon law in the definition of Denmark’s law of successions cf. the succinct considerations of Hoff, Annette. 2006. Recht und Landschaft. Der Beitrag der Landschaftsrechte zum Verständnis der Landwirtschafts- und Landschafsentwicklung in Dänemark ca. 900‐1250 (Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde, Erganzungsbände 54). Berlin-New York: de Gruyter, 376–379; and Vogt 2010, 155–207.

Romano, Andrea. 1994. Famiglia, successioni e patrimonio familiare nell’Italia meridionale e moderna (Il Diritto nella Storia 3). Torino: Giappichelli, 3.

Bartholus de Saxoferrato, Commentaria in D.28.2.11, de liberis et posthumis, l. In suis (Bartholus de Saxoferrato. 1526/1996. Super prima Infortiati. Venetiis: per Baptistam de Tortis, repr. Roma: Il Cigno Galileo Galilei, 110ra). Bartholus’ words are highlighted by Bellomo, Manlio. 1967. Famiglia (diritto intermedio). In Enciclopedia del Diritto 16, 745–779. Milano: Giuffrè, 748; di Renzo Villata, Maria Gigliola. 2016. Introduction. In di Renzo Villata, Maria Gigliola (ed.), Family Law and Society in Europe from the Middle Ages to the Contemporary Era (Studies in the History of Law and Justice 5). Cham: Springer, xi.

A recent study of this Book was made by Gelting, Michael. 2005. Pope Alexander III and the Danish Laws of Inheritance. In Tamm, Ditlev, and Vogt, Helle (eds.), How Nordic are the Nordic Medieval Laws? (Medieval Legal History 1), 86–115. Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen Press, whom I follow in the text (I cite from this first edition; the book was republished: Andersen, Per, Tamm, Ditlev, and Vogt, Helle [eds.]. 2011 [2nd ed.], How Nordic Are the Nordic Medieval Laws? Proceedings from the First Carlsberg Conference on Medieval Legal History. Copenhagen: DJØF). The Book of inheritance was written under King Valdemar I (1154/57–1182); it is published in Danmarks gamle Landskabslove med Kirkelovene. VII. Valdemars sjaellandske Lov: Arvebog og Orbodemål. 1942. ed. Kroman, Erik. Copenhagen: Gyldendal.

But this is a general question and involves the complete system of Nordic laws. An overall view of the different historiographic perspectives can be found in Tamm, Ditlev. 2005. How Nordic are the Old Nordic Laws. In Tamm, Ditlev, and Vogt, Helle (eds.), How Nordic are the Nordic Medieval Laws? (Medieval Legal History 1), 6–22. Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen Press (published also in 2004. Anuario de Historia del Derecho Español 74: 9–22). It is useful to quote his conclusion: “I do think that the Nordic laws are very Nordic but they also form part of a common European heritage of law from the 12th to the 14th century” (21 and f.). See also Vogt 2010, 61–63. On the common theme and the general question see also the contributions included in Andersen, Per, Salonen, Kirsi, Sigh, Helle, and Vogt, Helle (eds.). 2014. How Nordic are the Nordic Medieval Laws? Ten years after. Proceedings of the Tenth Carlsberg Academy Conference on Medieval Legal History, 2013. København: DJØF.

Gelting 2005, passim, and 87: “The Book of Inheritance did not represent existing customary law, but… it constituted a wholesale and quite radical transformation of Danish rules of inheritance, although with some concessions to customary attitudes”. Cf. Gelting, Michael. 2000. Odelsrett – lovbydelse – bördsrätt – retrait lignager: Kindred and Land in the Nordic Countries in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries. In Hansen, Lars Ivar (ed.), Family, Marriage and Property Devolution in the Middle Ages, 133–165. Tromsø: Department of History, University of Tromsø, 136–137, also with reference to the reconstruction of Iuul, Stig. 1940. Faellig og Hovedlod: Studier over Formueforholdet mellem Ægtefaeller i Tiden før Christian V’s Danske Lov. Copenhagen: Nyt nordisk Forlag, Arnold Busck, 66–84.

Analysis in Gelting 2005 (as n. 34) 93–104. On the meaning of portio capitalis see Vogt 2010, 157–159.

Book of Inheritance, text I, chapters 1.48–51 (ed. Kroman, as n. 34) 35–38: analysed by Gelting 2000, 135–142; and Gelting 2005, 99, 107 and f.

Skånelagen (Codex Iuris Scanici), chapters 37, 38, 39: Codex Iuris Scanici, Iuris Scanici Expositio Latine conscripta ab Andrea Sunonis f. archiepiscopo Lundensis, Codices Iuris Ecclesiastici ac Urbici Scaniae, et Statuta diversa Scaniam spectantia. 1859. Ed. Schlyter, Carl Johan (Corpus Iuris Sveo-Gotorum Antiqui IX). Lund: Berlingska Boktryckeriet, 30–31. The Law of Scania is now available in English translation. The Danish Medieval Laws (eds. Tamm and Vogt 2016, as n. 6) 56–96, especially 61 for chapters 37, 38, 39, here reported: [37]. “If a householder gives his grandchildren land while he is alive and conveys and hands it over to them, and it happens so that after his death the householder’s children demand from his grandchildren the land he gave to them, they shall witness that their father’s father gave and conveyed it to them. And he must not give them more than what would have been their paternal or maternal inheritance. If the grandchildren do not have it in their possession, the householder’s children can witness that their father did not convey to them. A woman may do the same with regard to her grandchildren as the householder may”. [38]. “If a healthy and remorseful holder wishes to enter a monastery, he may go there with his whole capital lot. If he falls ill, he can give a half to a monastery or to whomever he wishes, and nothing more [away] from the heir, neither to a monastery nor to another man”. [39]. “If a householder gives his child to a monastery, it may not claim inheritance after his death unless he wants to give it something”. For a general introduction to the Danish medieval laws see The Danish Medieval Laws (eds. Tamm and Vogt 2016, as n. 6) 3–42 (with further biliography), and 45–51 on the Law of Scania; Tamm, Ditlev, and Vogt, Helle. 2014. Latino o volgare: la creazione del linguaggio giuridico nella Danimarca del Duecento. In Maffei, Paola, and Varanini, Gian Maria, Honos alit artes. Studi per il settantesimo compleanno di Mario Ascheri. III. Il cammino delle idee dal Medioevo all’Antico regime. Diritto e cultura nell’esperienza europea, 291–301. Firenze, Firenze University Press, 297 with reference to these chapters of the Law of Scania; Andersen, Per. 2011. Legal Procedure and Practice in Medieval Denmark (Medieval Law and its Practice 11). Leiden: Brill, 71–83. A comprehensive overview is given by Strauch, Dieter. 2011. Mittelalterliches Nordisches Recht bis 1500: Eine Quellenkunde (Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde – Ergänzungsbände 73). Berlin-NewYork: de Gruyter, 283–367. See also Strauch, Dieter. 1990. Schonen, Landrecht (Kirchenrecht, Stadtrecht). In Handwörterbuch zur deutschen Rechtsgeschichte 4, 1481–1484. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag; Strauch, Dieter. 2004. Schonen. In Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde 27, 256–266. Berlin: de Gruyter; Strauch, Dieter. 2005. Sjaellandske Love. In Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde 28, 535–542. Berlin: de Gruyter; Ehrhardt, Harald. 1995. Schoniches Recht. In Lexikon des Mittelalters 7, 1538–1539. München und Zürich: Artemis-&-Winkler-Verlag. On the problems of dating the Danish provincial laws see the discussion in Vogt 2010 (as n. 6) 44–49, 60–73, and, with particular reference to the Church Laws (see the following note), Andersen, Per. 2016. Dating the Laws of Medieval Denmark: Studies of the Manuscripts of the Danish Church Laws. In Hundahl, Kerstin, Kjær, Lars, and Lund, Niels (eds.), Denmark and Europe in the Middle Ages, c. 1000–1525. Essays in Honour of Professor Michael H. Gelting, 183–201. London and New York: Routledge.

Church Law of Scania, chapter 8 (ed. Schlyter, as n. 39) 363–364. In the volume cited, Schlyter gives the edition of two Latin versions of the Church Law of Scania. Iuris Ecclesiastici Scaniae versio latina, ex cod. 19, cap. 10 (at 384): “Quantum quisque potest dare in extremis. In extremis quis positum dimidiam capitalem portionem potest dare deo et non plus in infirmitate positus vel constitutus. Si heredes post mortem negaverit (sic) et presbiter contrarium dixerit negent heredes cum XII de parrochia legittimis. Siqui presentes fuerint et supersedentes collacionem videbunt volunt que tamen heredes testimonium testancium infirmare et negare iurent hoc cum XII viris infra parrochiam nominatis”; cap. 11 (at 384): “De sano intrante religionem. Quicumque sanus et incolumis ad religionem se vel sua transferre voluerit cum tota substancia bene licebit”. Cf. Iuris Ecclesiastici Scaniae versio latina, ex cod. 47, cap. 10 (at 391): “In extremis quis positus dimidiam porcionem capitalem potest dare deo, non plus in infirmitate positus sive constitutus. Si heredes post mortem datum negaverint et presbiter contrarium dixerit negent heredes cum XII legittimis de parrochia nisi affuerint plures testes dum condidit testamentum”; cap. 11 (at 391): “Quicunque sanus et inocolumis (sic) ad religionem se transferre cum suis voluerit cum tota substancia sua bene licebit intrare iuxta antiqua iura”. The oldest one among the texts in old Danish, in which the Church Law of Scania was transmitted, is now translated into English. See The Danish Medieval Laws (eds. Tamm and Vogt 2016, as n. 6) 52–55. The relevant text is here numbered as chapter 5 (at 53): “[…] If a man lying on his deathbed gives his property to God, then he may give half of his capital lot and not more in the sickbed. But if his heirs deny this after his death, and the priest says that it was given, then the heirs shall deny it with twelve prudent men. But if there are witnesses, who heard it and were present there, and if the heirs still want to deny it against the witnesses, then it shall be proven with twelve nominated men from the church parish. But if a healthy man will enter a monastery, he then can go in with all his capital lot”. In the cited volume The Danish Medieval Laws (eds. Tamm and Vogt 2016, as n. 6) 114–115, the editors decided not to translate the Church Law of Zealand because of its similarity with the Church Law of Scania. For the explanation of these norms (and the related chapter of the Church Law of Zealand) I follow Tamm 1993 (as n. 31) 10–11. On the pious donations and the right of disposal of property see Vogt 2010, 185–207. On the “nominated men”, a sort of a jury made of “twelve men chosen to swear”, see The Danish Medieval Laws (eds. Tamm and Vogt 2016, as n. 6) 309, and Andersen, Per. 2014. “The truth must always be stronger”: The introduction and development of Nafnd in the Danish provincial laws. In Brink, Stefan, and Collinson, Lisa (eds.), New Approaches to Early Law in Scandinavia (Acta Scandinavica 3), 7–36. Turnhout: Brepols. I am indebted to Prof. Jørn Øyrehagen Sunde for helping me in the understanding of these issues.

How much this fact was determining for the increase and consolidation of the ecclesiastical estate is shown by the quantitative data relative to the ecclesiastically owned lands: Orrman, Eljas. 2003. Church and Society. In Helle, Knut (ed.), The Cambridge History of Scandinavia. I. Prehistory to 1520, 421–464. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 452 and f. The spread of the practice of pius bequests offers a measure of the popular adhesion to the message of salvation propagated by the Church: Bagge, Sverre. 2003. Ideologies and Mentalities. In Helle, Knut (ed.), The Cambridge History of Scandinavia. I. Prehistory to 1520, 465–486. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 478.

The years 1171–1180 are indicated by Jaffé, Philippus. 1885. Regesta Pontificum romanorum, editionem secundam curaverunt Ferdinand Kaltenbrunner (JK: an. ?–590), Paul Ewald (JE: 590–882), Samuel Loewenfeld (JL: 882–1198). Lipsiae: Veit, JL n. 13546. The dating of 6 July 1161, as proposed in the Diplomatarium Suecanum, is not possible: Svenskt Diplomatarium (Diplomatarium Suecanum). I. Åren 817‐1287. 1829. Ed. Liljegren, Johan Gustaf, n. 41, 60–63. Stockholm: P.A. Norstedt & Söner, 61: “Alexander episcopus… Karissimo in Christo filio K. illustri sweorum et gothorum regi et venerabilibus fratribus episcopis et dilectis filiis, nobili viro duci, universo clero et populo per Gothiam constitutis… Eterna et incommutabilis…”. The recipient is in fact Cnut Ericsson, the King di Sweden from 1167 to 1195/96. On the question see Gelting 2005, 108–111.

“Ad hec nunciatum nobis est quod sunt aliqui inter vos qui, exheredatis legitimis filiis, bona sua omnia ecclesiis derelinquunt, quod quidem nullo iure permittitur, sed qui habet unum filium, si vult, alterum faciat Christum, dimidiam ecclesie relinquendo. Qui habet duos, faciat tertium Christum, et sic in ceteris, quoniam ecclesia exheredatis filiis recipere totum non debet. Quod nimirum fratres vel sorores fratribus vel sororibus pretermissis facere possunt, ut sine filiis decedentes totum ecclesiis derelinquant”: Svenskt Diplomatarium 1829 (ed. Liljegren, as n. 42) I, 63.

The reference is to Decretum Gratiani, C.13 q.2 c.8 and Gr.p (quoted from Corpus Iuris Canonici 1879–1881 [as n. 2]): “Pro numero filiorum pars hereditatis Deo offeratur. Si quis irascitur filio suo, et moriens exheredat eum, si viveret, non eum placarem? non ei filium reconciliare deberem? Quomodo ergo uolo ut cum filio suo habeat pacem, cuius appeto hereditatem? Sed plane sic faciat quod sepe hortatus sum. Unum filium habet: putet Christum alterum; duos habet: putet Christum tertium; decem habet: faciat Christum undecimum, et suscipio. Gratianus. Hac nimirum auctoritate mensura testatori prefigitur, non quam cogatur exsoluere, sed quam prohibetur transscendere”. On the comments of the canonists upon this text see also Hallebeek, Jan. 2012. Dispositions ad pias causas in Gratian’s Decretum. Should the portio Christi be restricted to the child’s share? In Zimmermann, Reihard (ed.), Der Einfluss religiöser Vorstellungen auf die Entwicklung des Erbrechts, 79–102. Tübingen: Mohr, and Reid, Jr., Charles J. 2017. The Jurisprudence of the Forced Share: The High and Late Middle Ages. In Rønning, Ole-Albert, Møller Sigh, Helle, and Vogt, Helle (eds.), Donations, Inheritance and Property in the Nordic and Western World from Late Antiquity until Today, 64–114. London - New York: Routledge.

Rufinus, Summa Decretorum, ad dictum Gratiani ante C.13 q.2 c.9 (Die Summa Decretorum des magister Rufinus. 1902. Ed. Singer, Heinrich. Paderborn: Schöning, 336): “Hac nimirum auctoritate mensura testatori prefigitur, non quam cogatur exsolvere, sed quam prohibetur transcendere. Due auctoritates in hoc loco indicuntur, que canonibus et legibus adverse esse videntur. Quod enim inducit Augustinum dicentem quod pater, si habet unum filium, Christum faciat alterum, i.e. non debet plus dare ecclesie quam filio relinquere, hoc est contrarium legibus, ubi dicitur quod, si quis ad monasterium vult converti, omnes res suas monasterio conferre potest, dummodo filii legitima non fraudentur, hoc est quarta vel tertia; ut infra C. XIX q. III c. Si qua mulier (c.9 = Nov.123 c.38). Item quod inducit de Leone—quia quicunque sive in vita sive in morte in monasterium convertitur, omnium eorum, que pro anime sue redemptione testatur, medietatem relinquere debet sue ecclesie, in qua sacramentorum pabulum recepit—tota facie adversum est presignate legi et illi decreto Gregorii, quod est in ead. q. (C.19 q.3) c. Perlatum (8), ubi Petronilla commendatur, que omnes res suas contulit monasterio, in quo ingressa est. Sed istud Augustini non prohibitio, sed dissuasio est, scil. ut non plus conferat ecclesie quam relinquat heredi; vel ex causa intelligendum, videlicet ut non contra filium iratus hoc faciat—unde et dicit: (c.8). Si quis irascitur. Pia vere mentis deliberatione precedente preter legitimam omnia sua potest dare ecclesie, sicut asserunt leges humane. Illud autem Leonis vel ex contraria auctoritate et consuetudine abrogatum est vel similiter ex causa constitutum est, propter avaritiam scil. quorundam monachorum, qui homines cupiditate et fraude ad se trahendo omnia bona eorum peripere sitiunt, non curantes de animarum salute, sed de pecunie cumulatione”.

Stephanus Tornacensis, Summa Decretorum, ad dictum Gratiani ante C.13 q.2 c.9 (Die Summa des Stephanus Tornacensis über das Decretum Gratiani. 1891. Ed. Schulte, Johann Friedrich von. Giessen: E. Roth, 219): “sec. Aug. Immo et secundum leges habet filios suos aut instituere, aut exheredare ad hoc, ut dicatur testatus decessisse, et testamentum eius de iure valere. Non autem cogitur eos instituere in partes equales, dummodo nullum instituet in minorem partem, quam legitimam, i.e. in eam, que ei deberetur iure nature. Que olim erat quarta illius partis, quam habiturus erat ab intestato, hodie per authent. tertia. Exheredare autem si voluerit, causam exheredationis nominatim in testamento debet inserere, que etiam ab heredibus scriptis probari debet, si eum ab hereditate repellere velint. Cause autem exheredationis XIII sunt… Et secundum Leonem. Capitulum Leonis, cuius hic mentionem facit, non in volumine isto, sed inter cetera extravagantia in fine scribitur, quos sic incipit: Relatum est (Comp. I.3.24.4, de sepulturis; X.3.28.2, de sepulturis)”.

On the question of his competence in theology and in law see Pennington, Kenneth. 2002. Pope Alexander III. In Coppa, Frank John (ed.), The Great Popes through History. An Encyclopedia I, 113–122. Westport-London: Greenwood Press. For an account of the basical principles of the Roman-canon law of legitim see Helmholz, Richard H. 1987. Legitim in English Legal History. In Helmholz, Richard H. 1987. Canon Law and the Law of England, 247–262. London-Ronceverte: Hambledon Press.

Gelting 2005, 111–115.

Decretum Gratiani, C.19 q.3 c.9 (cf. Novella 123 c. 38; Epitome Iuliani 115 [116] c. 59; Collatio IX tit. 15 [= auth. Si qua sunt, post C.1.2.13]): “Item constitutio nova. Si qua mulier aut vir monasticam elegerit vitam, et intraverit monasterium, liberis non extantibus, monasterio, quod ingrediuntur, res eius conpetere iubemus. §. 1. Sed si persona liberos habens ante, quam de rebus suis inter eos disponat, monasterium intret, liceat ei postea inter eos diuidere, legitima nulli diminuta, et quod eis non dederit monasterio conpetet. §. 2. Sed si omnem substantiam inter filios dividere voluerit, sua persona filiis connumerata partem sibi retineat, que monasterio conpetere debeat. §. 3. Sed si post ingressum moriatur, ante, quam inter eos dividat, filii legitimam percipiant, reliqua substantia monasterio conpetente…”. The text belongs to the “additiones bononienses” to the Fd codex, datable to around 1150: Viejo-Ximénez, José Miguel. 2003. La ricezione del diritto romano nel diritto canonico. In De León, Enrique, and de las Asturias, Nicolás Álvarez (eds.), La cultura giuridico-canonica medioevale. Premesse per un dialogo ecumenico, 157–209. Milano: Giuffrè, 168, with table IV at 206. On these ‘additiones bononienses’ see Larrainzar, Carlos. 1998. El Decreto de Graciano del códice Fd (= Firenze, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, Conventi Soppressi A.I.402). In memoriam Rudolf Weigand. Ius Ecclesiae 10: 421–489. It can be noted that the constitution is however cited by Rufinus (cf. supra, footnote 45), whose Summa is traditionally dated to the years 1157/59, even though some have proposed a later date (1164).

Jaffé 1885 (as n. 42), JL 12117, 10 Sept. 1171/1172; ed. in Svenskt Diplomatarium 1829 (ed. Liljegren, as n. 42), I, n. 54, 76–82 (where a wider date span is proposed: 1165–1181, 10 Sept.): “Alexander papa Upsellensi Archiepiscopo, et universis suffraganeis eius, tam in Suetia, quam in Gothia constitutis. Constituti a Domino…”. For dating and the context in which the letter was written see Gelting 2005, 113 and notes 99–100.

For the destination of the temporal goods in the life and the law of the Church see Condorelli, Orazio. 2016. I beni temporali al servizio della comunione ecclesiale nei primi secoli della vita della Chiesa. In I beni temporali nella comunione ecclesiale, Gruppo Italiano dei Docenti di Diritto Canonico, XLII Incontro di studio (Borca di Cadore, 29 giugno–3 luglio 2015), 37–64. Milano: Glossa.

The second hypothesis does not seem to exclude the first: cf. Gelting 2005, 113 note 100.

Potthast n. 2711, 10 March 1206; ed. in Svenskt Diplomatarium 1829 (ed. Liljegren, as n. 42) I, n. 131, 156–157: “Ex parte karissimi in Christo filii nostri Sverkeri illustris regis Swecie nobis est auribus intimatum quod cum legislatores regni eius annis singulis teneantur coram populo legem consuetudinis publicare, asserunt inter ipsas consuetudines observandum quod nemo in extremis aliquid Deo et Ecclesiis de bonis temporalibus nisi presentibus et consencientibus heredibus potestatem habeat conferendi. Dicunt eciam quod clerici ad forense iudicium sunt vocandi et ibi debent de causis propriis iudicari. Ne igitur abhominacio legis huiusmodi sive consuetudo perversa subvertat homines et seducat, fraternitati vestre per apostolica scripta mandamus atque precipimus quatinus auctoritate nostra hominibus ipsius terre publice denunciare curetis quod omnes habeant liberam facultatem de bonis suis cum egerint in extremis ecclesiis atque pauperibus seu aliis intuitu pietatis beneficia conferendi. Clericos quoque super ecclesiasticis rebus trahi ad seculare iudicium non sinatis nec eos subire iudicium seculare, contradictores per censuram ecclesiasticam appellacione postposita compescentes…”. This decretal (as well as Alexander III’s Eterna et incommutabilis) is mentioned by Mayenburg, David von. 2009. “Laudabilis usus” oder “detestabilis consuetudo”? Mortuaria und andere Abgaben von Todes wegen aus der Perspektive des Kirchenrechts. In Condorelli, Orazio, Roumy, Franck, and Schmoeckel, Mathias (eds.), Der Einfluss der Kanonistik auf die europäische Rechtskultur. I. Zivil- und Zivilprozessrecht (Norm und Struktur 37.1), 337–387. Köln-Weimar-Wien: Böhlau, 384. See also Nielsen 2002, 15 and 29 note 86.

As Gelting 2005, 114, says, this norm was codified for the first time in the Elder Västgöta Law, probably written in the first quarter of the XIIIth Century. The norm was then repeated in the other Swedish provincial laws. This is a practice similar to that of the laudatio parentum studied by White, Stephen D. 1988. Custom, Kinship, and Gifts to Saints: The Laudatio parentum in Western France, 1050–1150. Chapel Hill-London: University of North Carolina Press.

C.1.2.1: “[…] Nihil est quod magis hominibus debetur, quam ut supremae voluntatis, post quam iam aliud velle non possunt, liber sit stilus et licitum quod iterum non redit arbitrium”.

Cf. Decretum Gratiani, C.13 q.2 c.4: “Unde B. Gregorius ait: … Ultima voluntas defuncti omnibus modis conservetur”. The principle is placed in a thematic context in which the choice of burial is made, but is then extended to the dispositions of last wills as regards the estate. In Rufinus’s Summa ad C.13 q.2 c.4 (ed. Singer, as n. 45) 335, respect for the ultima voluntas is expressly linked to the libertas testandi, recalled through the words of the Constitution of Constantine I: “Ultima voluntas: legibus non improbata: nichil enim est quod magis hominibus debeatur, quam ut supreme voluntatis, postquam aliud velle non possunt, liber sit stilus et licitum quod iterum non redit arbitrium”.

Paravicini Bagliani, Agostino. 1972. Cardinali di curia e “familiae” cardinalizie. Dal 1227 al 1254, I–II (Italia Sacra 18–19). Padova: Antenore, I 186–197.

Tamm 1993, 13; Gelting 2005, 114–115; Vogt, Helle. 2017. Protecting the Individual, the Kin and the Soul: Donation Regulations in Danish and Norwegian Medieval Legislation. In Rønning, Ole-Albert, Møller Sigh, Helle, and Vogt, Helle (eds.), Donations, Inheritance and Property in the Nordic and Western World from Late Antiquity until Today, 130–145. London - New York: Routledge (in particular the section on the capital tithe).

Potthast n. 20893, 9 August 1274; ed. in Svenskt Diplomatarium 1829 (ed. Liljegren, as n. 42) I, n. 577, 475–477: “Gregorius episcopus servus servorum Dei dilectis filiis nobilibus viris… Duci, legiferis, prolocutoribus, aliisque nobilibus per regnum Swecie constitutis, salutem et apostolicam benedictionem. Ad audientiam apostolatus nostri pervenit, quod multa illicita in regno Swecie a vobis vestrisque ballivis et ministerialibus presumuntur, que noscuntur in divine maiestatis offensam et derogationem libertatis ecclesiastice redundare. Nam si quisquam vestrum vel alius quicumque, sive clericus sive laicus eiusdem regni condens de propriis mobilibus, sive immobilibus testamentum, aliqua de bonis ipsis legaverit ecclesiis aut aliis piis locis, huiusmodi legatum, secundum quandam pravam consuetudinem, dicendum potius corruptelam, que a nobis (sic: recte vobis) irrationabiliter approbata, in illis partibus inolevit, et pro lege servatur, nullum robur obtinet firmitatis, nisi quatenus de ipsius testatoris heredum processerit voluntate, licet in litteris felicis recordationis Alexandri pape III predecessoris nostri ad clare memorie K. regem Sweuorum, et episcopos, ac clerum per Swetiam constitutos directis, inter alia contineri dicatur expresse, ut qui habet unum filium heredem, secundum si voluerit faciat sibi Christum, dimidium bonorum suorum ecclesie relinquendo, et qui duos tertium, et sic deinceps. Qui vero nullum, ipsi ecclesie si voluerit omnia sua bona relinquat, non obstante contradictione fratrum, vel sororum aut aliorum etiam propinquorum. Impediuntur etiam a vobis, dictisque ballivis, et ministerialibus dicti regni prelati, quominus testamenta decedentium, quo ad ea, que in pios usus ab ipsis decedentibus relinquuntur per ipsos iuxta eorum officii debitum executioni mandentur, nostra (sic: recte vestra) que statuta extendere ad clericos nitimini, et nichilominus ipsos tamquam laicos puniri facitis, si statuta eadem non observent, contra canonicas sanctiones…”. From the tone of this text it seems that the letter from Alexander III was not directly consulted by Gregory, but that it was enclosed with the communication which reached the Pope. On the recipients of the decretal see Gelting 2000, 141.

Cf. X.3.26.19. On the canon law concerning the testamentary executor see Helmholz, Richard H. 2004. The Canon Law and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction from 597 to the 1640 s (The Oxford History of the Laws of England). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 391; Ferme, Brian E. 1996. Canon Law in Late medieval England. A Study of William Lyndwood’s Provinciale with particular reference to Testamentary Law (Pontificia Studiorum Universitas Salesiana, Facultas Iuris Canonici, Studia et Textus Historiae Iuris Canonici 8). Roma: Libreria Editrice Salesiana, 79–103.

Potthast n. 10430, 11 August 1237; ed. in Svenskt Diplomatarium 1829 (ed. Liljegren, as n. 42) I, n. 297, 289: “Gregorius episcopus servus servorum dei venerabili fratri… Archiepiscopo Lundensi salutem etc. Venerabilis frater noster… Roskildensis episcopus executor testamenti quondam Exberni militis sua nobis petitio (sic: recte petitione) monstravit, quod cum idem E. in extremis agens certas res de bonis suis certis personis conferri et alia bona sua per eius manus pauperibus, et piis locis mandaverit erogari, prout per litteras ipsius sigillo signatas, et plurimum bonorum virorum testimonium potest manifeste probari, Margarita mulier Roskildensis Diocesis mater et heres ipsius E. iuxta quandam pravam illius terre consuetudinem, que abusus potius dici potest, videlicet, quod si probatur per duodecim testes, qui nominati dicuntur, quod decedens aliquid in testamento alicui non dimisit, testamentum decedentis non valet, licet contrarium per autenticas litteras et idoneos testes probetur, negativam huiusmodi se asserens probaturam occasione talis abusus, malitiose presumit, quo minus dictus episcopus testamentum ipsum possit executioni mandare; quare pia predicti militis dispositio impeditur. Quocirca mandamus, quatenus, si est ita, dictam M. ut prefata consuetudine non obstante permittat idem testamentum, quo ad ea, que in pios sunt usus legata sine difficultate aliqua executioni mandari, monitione premissa per censuram ecclesiasticam et c. compellas…”.

See above, § 3.1. The case dealt with in this decretal happend in Scania. As far as the Law of Zealand is concerned, the Law of Valdemar (ca. 1220s) was based on the older regulations. See Law of Valdemar, chapter 5 (eds. Tamm and Vogt 2016, 122): “[…] But if he wants to leave something when is dead, then he may not, be he healthy or ill, give more than half of his capital lot to a church or a monastery or a bishop or a priest or any other man. But if a bishop or a monastery or a church raises a complaint and the heirs of the deceased deny, and those who raise the complaint have a witness that it was given, then the heirs must defend it with nominated men if they want to, or settle it. But if those who complained do not have a witness, then the heirs can defend it with an oath of twelve. If some other man raises a complaint to it, then the heirs can defend it with the same oath as was said before”. Thereafter, Erik’s Law of Zealand (around the middle of the XIII c.) estabilished that a donor could secure his gift against the claims from his heirs, if the donation was made befor the assembly (thing). See Erik’s Law of Zealand, Book I, chapter 32 (eds. Tamm and Vogt 2016, 163): “What a householder may leave after him. After his death, the householder may not give more than half of his capital lot, nor may a woman. But if he gives half of his capital lot, and he conveys it at the assembly, then whatever he gives, be it to houses of God or to other men, then that always stands for which there is assembly-witness. But what is given outside the assembly, be it to either to (sic) God’s houses or as a gift for his soul, if there are witnesses of assembly men that he or the wife gave, and if their heirs wish to deny, then they shall deny with an oath of twelve nominated men. But if some other man raises a claim for his half lot, then they shall not deny it with more than twelve prudent men, even though there are witnesses. You should also know than one may not give more to one heir than to others”. This new rule caused a change in the practice, at least from 1248 onwards, as charters attest: see Vogt 2010, 68–71.

The role of canon law and the ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the process of spreading the culture of ius commune in Nordic countries is a fact which is commonly highlighted. A general overview is offered by Fenger, Ole. 1981. L’influence du droit romain dans la Scandinavie mediévale (Ius Romanum Medii Aevi V.14). Milano: Giuffrè, in particular 29–46. Among the most recent studies I remember, without intending this to be a complete list, Hørby, Kai. 1997. Church and State in Medieval and Early Modern Denmark. The Legal Issue. In Padoa-Schioppa, Antonio (ed.), Legislation and Justice (The European Science Foundation: The Origins of the Modern State in Europe, 13th–18th Centuries), 197–210. Oxford: Clarendon Press; Bagge, Sverre. 2004. The Scandinavian Kingdoms. In The New Cambridge Medieval History. V. c. 1198‐c. 1300, 720–742. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; Tamm 2005; Landau 2005; Gelting 2005; Korpiola 2005. On Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and the Reception of Canon Law in the Swedish Provincial Laws. In Tamm, Ditlev, and Vogt, Helle (eds.), How Nordic are the Nordic Medieval Laws? (Medieval Legal History 1), 202–231. Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen Press; Korpiola, Mia. 2007. On the Influence of Roman Law in Medieval Sweden: Books and University Studies. In Liber Amicorum Kjell Å. Modéer, 343–355. Lund: Juristförlaget; Sigurðsson Jon V., Pedersen Frederick, and Berge, Anders. 2008. Making and Using the Law in the North, c. 900–1350. In Lottes, Günther, Medijainen, Eero, and Sigurðsson, Jon V. (eds.), Making, Using and Resisting the Law in European History, 37–64. Pisa: Edizioni Plus. As for the Italian juridical historiography, I would like to indicate some pages of the book by Calasso, Francesco. 1950. Introduzione al diritto comune. Milano: Giuffrè, 323–324 (cf. Calasso1954, 620–621) which, though limited to Norway, invite continuing research and reflection. On the historical significance of the utrumque ius see Condorelli, Orazio. 2012. Corpus Iuris Civilis. In Otaduy, Javier, Viana, Antonio, and Sedano, Joaquín (eds.), Diccionario General de Derecho Canónico II, 765–775. Pamplona: Thomson Reuters Aranzadi, 772–773.

Tamm 1993, 11.

 Tamm 1993, 10; Erslev, Kristian. 1901. Testamenter fra Danmarks Middelalder indtil 1450. København: Den Gyldendalske boghandel. See also the survey in Vogt 2017.

Diplomatarium Danicum, I. Raekke, 4. Bind, 1200–1210. 1958. Ed. Skyum-Nielsen, Niels, 55–63. København: Ejnar Munksgaards Forlag, 59: “Quae praesenti pagina continentur ex testamento legavit et donavit venerabilis dominus Absolon (sic), Lundensis Ecclesiae archiepiscopus, Suetiae primas, ad hoc vocatis et praesentibus domino Esberno fratre suo… (and 11 witnesses more)”.

Diplomatarium Danicum (ed. Skyum-Nielsen, as n. 75) n. 82, 169–171 (at 170). Cf. Decretum Gratiani, C.13 q.2 c.8 and what I wrote supra, § 3.2. Gelting 2000, 159 note 62, notes that the idea of making Christ co-heir appears in the Danish documents even before Alexander III emanated the Eterna et incommutabilis. Vogt 2010, 190 and f., mentions a document dated 1135.

Gelting 2000 (as n. 36); Ehrhardt, Harald. 1993. Odal. In Lexikon des Mittelalters 6, 1345. München und Zürich: Artemis-&-Winkler-Verlag. In general, the case of the retrait lignager is a typical field of interaction between particular laws and ius commune, as is demonstrated by Bezemer, Kees. 2000. “Ne res exeat de genere”. How a French Custom Was Introduced into the ius commune. Rivista Internazionale di Diritto Comune 11: 67–115.

Cf. D.2.7.4 (per calumniam in ius vocare); D.5.1.10 (calumniae causa litem instituere); D.5.3.43 (per calumniam petere hereditatem); D.47.10.43 (per calumniam actionem instituere); etc. The original meaning of the term is transformed and turned upside down in the centuries of the High Middle Ages: here it is enough to go back to the word calumnia in du Cange, Charles du Fresne. 1883‐1887. Glossarium mediae et infimae latinitatis. Niort: L. Favre, ad vocem; cf. also Vogt 2010 (as n. 6) 187. Among the canonists the original meaning seems to have already been re-established in the Decretum Gratiani, at least as regards the criminal aspects of the calumnia (dictum post C.2 q.3 c.8): “V. Pars. Gratian. Notandum quoque est, quod, sicut in Digestis libro XLVIII. legitur, titulo de abolitione criminum: [D.48.16.1] ‘Accusatorum temeritas tribus modis detegitur. Aut enim calumpniantur, aut prevaricantur, aut tergiversantur. Calumpniari est falsa crimina intendere; preuaricari uera crimina abscondere; tergiversari in universum ab accusatione desistere’”.

“Astantes itaque fratres nostri, prepositus Skaelm, Nicholaus et Iohannes fidem dederunt nobis in multorum presencia quod et donum nostrum defenderent et a nulla sinerent ipsum calumpnia perturbari”: Diplomatarium Danicum (ed. Skyum-Nielsen, as n. 75) 171. It is not totally clear whether the fratres were blood brothers, or if the term should be referred to the members of the Cathedral chapter. This second hypothesis seems the best to me, both due to the qualification of praepositus attributed to one of those present, and due to the content of the promise: this consists of the undertaking to defend the stability of the act against the claims of others; in fact brothers would have been among those opposing the dispositions claiming the violation of the norms of Danish law of successions.

“Ceterum ut hoc factum illibatum perhenniter maneat ne deleri possit processu temporis, advocati sunt testes idonei, quorum hoc nomina subscribuntur (5 names follow and the generic indication of other people, familiares et pueri)… Insuper ut res ista stabilis permaneret et integra presentem paginam sigilli nostri munivimus firmamento… Actum puplice in curia nostra…”: Diplomatarium Danicum (ed. Skyum-Nielsen, as n. 75) 171.

Among the Justinianic sources cf. D.22.5.9 e D.22.5.10. The figure of the testis idoneus recurs in the decretals listed under the title de testibus already in the Compilatio prima. But the idea was much older. The concept appears in a canon, drawn from a Frankish capitulare, handed down in the De synodalibus causis by Regino Prumiensis (II.342); and then in the Decretum of Burchardus of Worms (XVI.35); with variants in the Decretum Gratiani (C.4 q.2–3 c.2: here the word idonei is missing, and has been substituted by optimi); the canon was then included in the Compilatio secunda (Comp.II.2.12.1); finally in the tit. de testibus del Liber Extra (X.2.20.1): “Ex concilio Matercensi. Placuit sancto conventui, ut testes ad testimonium non conducantur pretio, et ut quicunque idonei et fideles in testimonium assumantur, ut is, contra quem testimoniare debent, nullam eis infamiam possit inferre, ac nullus testimonium dicat, nisi ieiunus”. The concept of idoneitas of the testes also appears in Gratian, C.4 q.2–3 c.3, a text composed from fragments of Roman laws.

Cf. the decretal Scripta vero di Alessandro III, inserted in the Compilatio prima (Comp.I.2.15.2), and then in the Liber Extra (X.2.22.2, de fide instrumentorum).

Strauch 2011 (as n. 39) 307–313, at 308, describes the Liber legis Scaniae as “eine nach scholasticher Methode geschriebene Summa”. See also Skov, Sigvard. 1940. Anders Sunensøns parafrase af Skånske Lov. Scandia 13: 171–195; Tamm, Ditlev. 1986. Un paralelo nordico de la obra alfonsina. La legislacion del Rey Valdemar II de Dinamarca. In Pérez-Martín, Antonio (ed.), España y Europa, un pasado jurídico común. Actas del I Simposio Internacional del Instituto de Derecho Común (Murcia, 26–28 de marzo de 1985) (Publicaciones del Instituto de Derecho Común, Universidad de Murcia 1), 81–100. Murcia: Instituto de Derecho Común, 85–86; Tamm and Vogt 2014, 297.

In the preface to the Gesta Danorum Saxo (around 1208) thus addresses Anders Sunesen (http://​wayback-01.​kb.​dk/​wayback/​20100504153427/​http://​www2.​kb.​dk/​elib/​lit/​dan/​saxo/​lat/​or.​dsr/​0/​1/​index.​htm. Accessed 29 March 2017): “Tu Galliam Italiamque cum Britannia percipiendae litterarum disciplinae colligendaeque earum copiae gratia perscrutatus post diutinam peregrinationem splendidissimum externae scholae regimen apprehendisti tantumque eius columen evasisti, ut potius magisterio ornamentum dare quam ab ipso recipere videreris”. For a brief biographical profile and an assessment of his bearing in the field of law see Volz, Ruprecht. 1980. Andreas, 10, Andreas filius Sunonis. In Lexikon des Mittelalters 1, 607. München und Zürich: Artemis-&-Winkler-Verlag; Iuul, Stig. 1948. Anders Sunesen som Lovgiver og juridisk Forfater. Svensk Juristtidning 33: 6–21; Fenger 1981, 32 and f.; Hørby 1997, 200–201; Nielsen and Jensen 1998; Nielsen, Torben K. 2000. Archbishop Anders Sunesen and Pope Innocent III: Papal Privileges ad Episcopal Virtues. In Friis-Jensen, Karsten, and Skovgaard-Petersen, Inge (eds.), Archbishop Absalon of Lund and his World, 113–132. Roskilde: Roskilde Museums Forlag.

Libri memoriales capituli Lundensis: Lunde domkapitels gavebøger (“Libri datici Lundenses”). 1884‐1889. Ed. Weeke, Christian. Kjøbenhavn: I Kommission Hos Rudolph Klein, Thieles Bogtrykkeri, 142–143: “Anno ab incarnatione domini M° CC.° XXVIII° in nativitate Sancti Johannis baptiste obiit dominus Andreas Lundensis Archiepiscopus quartus, qui divinis et secularibus litteris efficaciter imbutus ecclesie dei verbo et exemplo laudabiliter prefuit et profuit…”. The obituary can be read in the ms. preserved at the Lunds Universitetsbiblioteket, Medeltidshandskrift 7, 58r–59r, consultable on the website of the St. Laurentius Digital Manuscript Library (http://​laurentius.​ub.​lu.​se/​, accessed March 29, 2017). I wish to thank Dr. Eva Nylander (Lund University Library) for the photocopies and information she kindly gave me on this manuscript.

Stephanus, before being elected Bishop of Tournai, was the Abbot of Sainte Genèviève, in Paris, from 1176/77: Viejo-Ximénez, José Miguel. 2004. Esteban de Tournai. In Domingo, Rafael, Juristas Universales. I. Juristas antiguos, 359–363. Madrid, Marcial Pons; Vuilliez, Charles. 2007. Tournai (Tornacensis), alias d’Orléans, Étienne (dit) de Tournai. 2007. In Arabeyre, Patrick, Halpérin, Jean-Louis, and Krynen, Jacques (eds.), Dictionnaire historique des juristes français, 747–748. Paris: Puf. According to P.E. Müller, Anders, unlike his elder brother Peter, was not a direct pupil of Stephanus at Sainte Geneviève: Müller, Petrus Erasmus. 1830. Vitae Andreae Sunonis archiepiscopi Lundensis. In Lex Scaniae antiqua latine reddita per Andream Sunonis, archiepiscopum Lundensem. 1846. Ed. Kolderup-Rosenvinge, Janus L. A. (Samling af gamle Danske Love), xxiii–lxv. Kjøbenhavn: Deichmanns Forlag, xxv.

It is a parallel and consequential phenomenon to the process of consolidation of the monarchical institution and the ecclesiastical hierarchies: Bagge, Sverre. 1984. Nordic Students at Foreign Universities until 1660. Scandinavian Journal of History 9: 1–29, 2–5. See also Dübeck, Inger. 1989‐91. Skånske lov og den europæiske baggrund. Historie. Jyske Samlinger, Ny række 18: 396–420; Vogt 2010, 81–86.

In this sense the figure of Anders Sunesen takes on an exemplary meaning when one wishes to understand the necessary interaction between ius commune and ius proprium which I spoke about in the Premise: for this reason he is remembered by Stein, Peter G. 1999. Roman Law in European History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 66–67. For methodological indications see Bellomo, Manlio. 1994. La “Carta de Logu” di Arborea nel sistema del diritto comune del tardo Trecento. Rivista Internazionale di Diritto Comune 5: 7–21, now in Bellomo, Manlio. 1997. Medioevo edito e inedito II, 149–164. Roma: Il Cigno Galileo Galilei; Bellomo, Manlio. 2006. Quattro modi per leggere i Fueros di Sepúlveda. Rivista Internazionale di Diritto Comune 17: 9–22.

Liber Legis Scaniae, cap. 38, Quid sit scotatio (ed. Schlyter, as n. 87) 270: “In venditione terrarum ad translationem dominii est necesse ut interveniat quedam sollempnitas, in qua terre modicum emptoris pallio, extento manibus assistentium, qui, si factum revocetur in dubium, perhibere possint testimonium veritati, apponit venditor, qui, designans terram quam distrahit, in emptorem ipsius se transferre dominium profitetur. Hec autem sollempnitas ex vulgari nostro producto vocabulo competenter satis potest scotatio nominari”.

 Liber Legis Scaniae, cap. 15, Quid seculo renuntiantium monasterio conferri possit a sano vel egro, a transeunte ad religionem vel non transeunte (ed. Schlyter, as n. 87) 250: “Cui licet et libet mundum relinquere, licet quoque cum bonis omnibus ipsum contingentibus, si sanus est et incolumis, religionis causa monasterium introire. Si vero propter gravis morbi periculum de rebus suis disponere urgeatur, medietatem tantum portionis ipsum contingentis conferendi habet monasteriis sive extraneis quibus voluerit facultatem, medietate reliqua non ad uxorem sed ad filios tantum et filias pertinente. Ipsum vero contingens portio nominatur que, divisione facta inter ipsum et filios et filias et alios, si qui fuerunt communium bonorum consortes, sibi soli competere comprobatur. Si vero solus sit et absque liberis, cuncta que possidet ipsum sunt contingentia, ut de illis, sicut determinatum est, ordinandi habeat potestatem. Ad religionem conversus, velud mundo mortuus, ad nullum habet de cetero successionis commodum aspirare, nisi quid ei religionis vel alterius favoris intuitu conferatur”.

Pars contingens appears in D.29.5.16, de senatuconsulto Silaniano et Claudiano, quorum testamenta ne aperiantur, l. Domino. On the recurrence of the expression pars contingens filio or pars filii in jurists’ discussions see Bellomo, Manlio. 1968. Problemi di diritto familiare nell’età dei comuni. Beni paterni e ‘pars filii’. Milano: Giuffrè, passim; Bellomo, Manlio. 1992. La struttura patrimoniale della famiglia italiana nel tardo medioevo. In Bonfield, Lloyd (ed.), Marriage, Property and Succession (Comparative Studies in Continental and Anglo-American Legal History 10), 53–69. Berlin: Duncker und Humblot, 56–58.

D.27.1.31.4; C.10.2.3. Cf. Accursius, Apparatus in D.27.1.34, l. Si is qui tres tutelas, v. consortes: “Id est, quibus idem patrimonium vel hereditas communiter obvenit. Nam sors etiam patrimonium significat” (Accursius, Apparatus in Digestum Infortiatum. 1591. In Pandectarum seu Digestorum Iuris Civilis… tomus secundus, quod Infortiatum vulgo appellatur. Cum Accursii commentariis, et doctissimorum virorum adnotationibus. Venetiis: sub signo Aquilae se renovantis).

The theme lends itself to some comparative considerations. Not without reason, the problems of managing an estate in co-ownership which was typical of the “Germanic” family model, were likened to those which, in the traditionally “Latin” family, are clearly shown in a passage from the Digesta (D.28.2.11, De liberis et posthumis heredibus instituendis vel exheredandis). In this passage by Paulus, the idea emerges that the filii familias are, in some way, domini of the patrimonium even when the father is alive: “In suis heredibus evidens apparet continuationem dominii eo rem perducere, ut nulla videatur hereditas fuisse, quasi olim hi domini essent, qui etiam vivo patre quodammodo domini existimantur. Unde etiam filius familias appellatur sicut pater familias, sola nota hac adiecta, per quam distinguitur genitor ab eo qui genitus sit. Itaque post mortem patris non hereditatem percipere videntur, sed magis liberam administrationem consequuntur. Hac ex causa licet non sint heredes instituti, domini sunt: nec obstat, quod licet eos exheredare, quod et occidere licebat”. For this consideration see Romano 1994, 23–24. On this passage of the Digesta jurists have pondered over the nature of this dominium, whose origins are traced back to a quoddam ius naturale primaevum or in the opinio vulgi. What the jurists found difficult to place within the category of the dominium, found space and legitimacy in the statutory legislation of the medieval Italian cities, which defined the juridical regime of the pars filii: this is “the portion of the estate which a son would inherit if the father were to die at the moment in which the need for the delimitation became real” (Bellomo 1992, 57). The already cited book by Bellomo (Problemi di diritto familiare nell’età dei comuni, as n. 97) is dedicated to this subject.

C.16 q.1 c.8: Secundum ethimologiam nominis monachus solitariam vitam ducat. Item Eugenius Papa (according to Friedberg it is a caput incertum). “… Sedeat itaque solitarius, et taceat, quia mundo mortuus est, Deo autem vivit…”. Cf. also Gratian, dictum post C.27 q.1 c.43.

Cf. C.19 q.3 c.10; Comp.III.22.1.2 = X.2.19.8.