Post on 22-Jan-2023
TH
E S
TE
PH
AN
KU
TT
NE
R I
NST
ITU
TE
OF
ME
DIE
VA
L C
AN
ON
LA
W
MÜ
NC
HE
N
2011-2
012
BU
LL
ET
IN
OF
ME
DIE
VA
L C
AN
ON
LA
W
NE
W S
ER
IES
V
OL
UM
E 29
ILC
IGN
O G
GE
DIZ
ION
I
RO
MA
Published annually at the Stephan K
uttner Institute of Medieval C
anon Law
Editorial correspondence should be addressed to:
ST
EP
HA
N-K
UT
TN
ER
INS
TIT
UT
E
OF
ME
DIE
VA
L C
AN
ON
LA
W
Professor-H
uber-Platz 2
D-80539 M
ünchen
PE
TE
R L
AN
DA
U, E
ditorU
niversität München
peter.landau@jura.uni-m
uenchen.de
KE
NN
ET
H P
EN
NIN
GT
ON
, Editor
The S
chool of Canon L
awT
he Catholic U
niversity of Am
ericaW
ashington, D.C
. 20064pennington@
cua.edu
Ad
viso
ry B
oa
rd
CA
RD
INA
L P
ÉT
ER
EA
rchbishop of Esztergom
Budapest
JO
SÉ M
IGU
EL
VIÉ
JO-X
IMÉ
NE
Z
Universidad de L
as Palm
as de G
ran Canaria
FR
AN
CK
RO
UM
Y
Université P
anthéon-Assas
Paris II
PE
TE
R L
INE
HA
N
St. John’s C
ollegeC
ambridge U
niversity
OR
AZ
IO C
ON
DO
RE
LL
I
Università degli Studi
Catania
KN
UT
WO
LFG
AN
G N
ÖR
R
Universität T
übingen
Subscriptions
can be ordered atw
ww
.apanconsulting.com
All business correspondence should be addressed to IL
CIG
NO
Jo
hn
of A
ncon
a’s S
um
mae: A
Neglected
Source for
the Juridical H
istory of the Latin K
ingdom
of Jerusalem
Jonathan Rubin
A
lthough sometim
es m
entioned in scholarly
literature, only very few
historians of the Latin E
ast are acquainted with
two
learned ‘sum
mae’
written
in the
Kingdom
of Jerusalem
during the latter part of the thirteenth century. 1 C
onsequently,
I am
grateful to Dr. M
artin Bertram
(Rom
e), Prof. E
sther Cohen (H
ebrew
University), P
rof. Anders W
inroth (Yale U
niversity) and Matti Friedm
an for their helpful com
ments on various drafts of this paper. I w
ould also like to thank Prof. G
érard Giordanengo (em
eritus, École nationale des C
hartes) and P
rof. Frank S
oetermeer for their help in earlier stages of m
y work on the
feudal ‘summ
ae’. More than all, I am
indebted to Prof. B
enjamin Z
. Kedar
(emeritus, H
ebrew U
niversity) for having introduced me to John's w
orks and for his generous guidance throughout m
y work on them
. 1 O
ne paper has been devoted to John’s canonical Summ
a: Martin B
ertram,
‘Johannes de Ancona: E
in Jurist des 13. Jahrhunderts in den Kreuzfahrer-
staaten’, BM
CL
7 (1977) 49-64. This Sum
ma w
as also briefly mentioned in
other works: Jam
es A. B
rundage, ‘Latin Jurists in the L
evant: The L
egal Elite
of the Crusader S
tates’, Crusaders and M
uslims in T
welfth C
entury Syria, ed. M
aya S
hatzmiller
(Leiden
1993) 25;
Benjam
in Z
. K
edar, C
rusade and
Mission: E
uropean Approaches tow
ard the Muslim
s (Princeton 1984) 170; D
omenico
Maffei,
Giuristi m
edievali e falsificazioni editoriali del primo
cinquecento (Frankfurt am M
ain 1979) 76-77. No w
ork has been dedicated to the feudal ‘sum
mae’. B
enjamin Z
. Kedar presented it in a w
orkshop which
took place at the Institute of Advanced S
tudies at the Hebrew
University of
Jerusalem in July 1999. O
therwise it w
as referred to in legal history literature: G
érard Giordanengo, ‘L
es feudistes’, El D
ret Com
ú i Catalunya: A
ctes del II. on Sim
posi Internacional Barcelona (C
ollecció Estudis 3; B
arcelona 1992) 113-115, 118-119; E
nnio Cortese, ‘D
omenico M
affei, Giuristi m
edievali e falsificazioni editoriali del prim
o Cinquecento’ (review
), Studi Medievali 22
(1981) 246-259; Maffei, G
iuristi 58-59, 75-80; Eduard M
. Meijers, É
tudes
184 JO
NA
TH
AN
RU
BIN
both texts w
ere not
utilized for
the study
of the
kingdom’s
juridical history. The aim
of this paper is to present these texts w
ithin the
context of
the L
atin K
ingdom
’s legal
arena thus
revealing their potential for this field of research. This is of
considerable im
portance, as
to this
day O
utremer’s
juridical history is dom
inated by a few treatises, 2 all belonging to w
hat m
ay be referred to as the customary – as opposed to learned –
legal tradition. 3
Consequently,
our view
of
the subject
is necessarily lim
ited. 4 T
he w
idening of
our perspective
in this
regard is
important since it has been argued that the fam
ous Frankish jurists w
ere at least partially m
otivated into composing their
d’histoire du droit 3: L
’Enseignm
ent du droit dans trois universités du XIIIe
siècle, ed. Robert F
eenstra et H.F
.W.D
. Fischer (L
eiden 1956-1973) 104-106; E
mil S
eckel, ‘Über neuere E
ditionen juristischer Schriften
’, ZR
G R
om. A
bt. 21 (1900) 253-256; S
avigny, Geschichte des röm
ischen Rechts 5.514-519;
Ernst A
. Laspeyres, Ü
ber die Enstehung und älteste B
earbeitung der Libri
Feudorum
(Berlin 1830) 86-90. B
oth ‘summ
ae’ are referred to in an elaborate discussion of G
iovanni Fagioli: C
ristina Bukow
ska Gorgoni, ‘Fagioli’, D
BI
(Rom
e 1994) 44.166-170. 2 T
hese texts are: Le livre au roi, dated to between 1197-1205, and probably
written by a m
ember of the king of Jerusalem
’s entourage; Le livre des assises de la cour des bourgeois, w
ritten by an anonymous m
iddle class burgess betw
een 1229-1244; Philip of Novara’s Le livre de F
orme de P
lait, the main
body of which w
as written in the early 1250’s, although it also includes later
chapters; Le livre des assises, w
ritten by John of Ibelin, one of the most
prominent nobles of the kingdom
, and completed betw
een 1264-1266. For
editions of these texts, as well as for introductory inform
ation about them, see
respectively: Le livre au roi, ed. M
yriam G
reilsamm
er (Docum
ents relatifs à l’histoire des C
roisades 17; Paris 1995); L
ivre des assises de la cour des bourgeois, ed. M
. Le C
omte B
eugnot (Recueil des historiens des croisades,
Lois 1-2; P
aris 1841-1843) 2.5-226. For basic inform
ation concerning this w
ork, see:
Joshua Praw
er, C
rusader Institutions (O
xford 1980)
366-369; P
hilip of Novara, L
e Livre de F
orme de P
lait, ed. and trans. Peter W
. Edbury
(Nicosia 2009); John of Ibelin, L
e Livre des A
ssises, ed. Peter W
. Edbury
(Leiden and B
oston 2003). 3 B
y ‘learned law’, I m
ean law based on know
ledge obtained in the rising universities of the W
est, and practiced by professionals. 4 P
eter W. E
dbury, ‘Feudal O
bligations in the Latin E
ast’, Byzantion 47
(1977) 348.
JO
HN
OF
AN
CO
NA
’S S
UM
MA
E 185
treatises because of a conflict with the rising learned tradition. 5
Until now
, however, w
e have had very little evidence for the learned
party in
that conflict. 6
John’s sum
mae
considerably narrow
this lacuna.
Brugge,
Stadtbibliotheek 377
includes a
Summ
a iuris
canonici w
hich, as
stated in
its prologue,
was
written
by ‘Johannes dom
ini Guidonis de A
ncona’, 7 and which is to be
dated to between 1265 and 1268. 8 T
hat this work w
as written in
the Latin K
ingdom is evident: T
he author was induced to w
rite his Sum
ma by W
illiam, P
atriarch of Jerusalem and papal legate,
and by William
of Lautario, archdeacon of A
cre; 9 John dedicated the w
ork to the Patriarch (as w
ell as to John Bonus, bishop of
Ancona); according to his preface, at the tim
e he began working
on the Summ
a, John was in charge of T
emplar juridical m
atters (‘patronus in causis’); he w
rites that from tim
e to time he also
took care of such matters for virtually all prelates and nobles of
this kingdom (‘alias causas quasi om
nium prelatorum
et nobilium
regni huius per diversa tempora procurarem
’). 10
5 P
eter Edbury w
rote that 'it may w
ell be that the practitioners in the courts w
ere finding it hard to justify their customary procedures and practices against
the challenge of lawyers trained in R
oman law
and that the treatises by John and the others w
ere designed to bolster the traditional system against an
alternative that was m
ore streamlined and m
ore rational in its application'. S
ee: John of Ibelin, Le L
ivre 43. More recently E
dbury made a sim
ilar argum
ent in the context of Philip of N
ovara’s work. Philip of N
ovara, Le L
ivre de Form
e 22. 6 A
rare example for the infiltration of learned law
into juridical activity in the L
evant was identified by Jam
es Brundage w
ho showed that in tw
o charters w
ritten at Acre the Senatusconsultum
Velleianum
was used: B
rundage, ‘Latin
Jurists’ 29. To this w
e may add that the sam
e Imperial judge w
ho phrased these charters, A
liotto Uguicionis, also introduced into docum
ents he edited another R
oman law
term: ‘possessio corporalis’. F
or the use of the term in
Rom
an law, see: D
ig. 41.2.25.2. For som
e examples for the use of the term
by A
liotto, see: Cartulaire général de l’ordre des H
ospitaliers de S. Jean de Jérusalem
, ed. Joseph Delaville le R
oulx (Paris 1894-1906) 2.765, 786-787. 7 L
ater in the prologue the author refers to himself as Johannes de A
ncona. T
he prologue is edited in: Bertram
, ‘Johannes de Ancona’ 59-61.
8 Bertram
, ‘Johannes de Ancona’ 52.
9 Brugge 377, fol. 342v; B
ertram, ‘Johannes de A
ncona’ 61. 10 B
rugge 377, fol. 1r; Bertram
, ‘Johannes de Ancona’ 59.
186 JO
NA
TH
AN
RU
BIN
It was long unclear w
hether John of Ancona, the author
of the canon law Sum
ma, w
as also the author of a certain Summ
a super usibus feudorum
. 11 The m
ost important support for this
possibility comes from
references to this text appearing in the Sum
ma iuris canonici. 12 T
he mention of M
artinus de Fano and of nobles
from
Ancona
in both
the canonical
and the
feudal ‘sum
mae’ and the acquaintance that both texts show
with the
juridical circumstances in the K
ingdom of Jerusalem
are also suggestive in the sam
e direction. The argum
ent that they were
both written by the sam
e person can be strengthened by the periods
in which they w
ere written: T
he feudal Sum
ma w
as considered by M
eijers to have been written betw
een 1258 and 1266, 13 and the Sum
ma iuris canonici w
as, as already mentioned,
probably written betw
een 1265 and 1268. 14
11
Contrary
to his
canonistic Sum
ma,
John’s feudal
work
was
highly successful.
Baldus
de U
baldis used
parts from
the
Summ
a in his
feudal treatise: L
aspeyres, Enstehung 415-416; G
illes Bellem
ère was influenced by it
in his work: H
enri Gilles, ‘G
illes Bellem
ère, canoniste’, HL
F (1967) 40.56.
Quoted in: G
érard Giordanengo, L
e droit féodal dans les pays de droit écrit: L
’exemple de la P
rovence et du Dauphiné, X
IIe-début XIV
e siècle (Biblio-
thèque des écoles françaises d’Athènes et de R
ome fasc. 266; R
ome 1988)
143. The considerable num
ber of manuscripts in w
hich the Summ
a appears (a list of these m
anuscripts appears as an appendix to this paper) also bears testim
ony to the popularity of John’s feudal treatise. Furtherm
ore, a feudal Sum
ma attributed to S
yllimanus – alm
ost certainly some version of John’s
treatise – was already held by a stationer in Italy betw
een approximately 1280
and 1290. Jean-François G
enest, ‘Le fonds juridique d’un stationnaire italien à
la fin du XIIIe siècle: m
atériaux nouveaux pour servir à l’histoire de la pecia’, L
a production du livre universitaire au moyen âge: E
xemplar et pecia: A
ctes du sym
posium tenu au C
ollegio San Bonaventura de G
rottaferrata en mai
1983, ed. Louis J. B
ataillon, Bertrand G
. Guyot and R
ichard H. R
ouse (Paris
1988) 133-154. For the connection betw
een John’s treatise and Syllim
anus’ w
ork, see the appendix below. F
or possible additional evidence on the feudal Sum
ma’s presence in lists of peciae, see: G
iovanna Murano, O
pere diffuse per exem
plar e pecia (Textes et études du m
oyen âge 29; Turnhout 2005) 192,
741-742. 12
B
ertram, 'Johannes de A
ncona' 57; Maffei, G
iuristi 76; Bukow
ska Gorgoni,
‘Fagioli’ 169; B
rugge 377, fol. 93r: ‘…recurratis ad sum
mulam
nostram de
feudis’, fol. 196r: ‘…ut notavim
us in summ
a nostra de feudis…’
13
Meijers, É
tudes d’histoire 3.104. 14
Bertram
, ‘Johannes de Ancona’ 52.
JO
HN
OF
AN
CO
NA
’S S
UM
MA
E 187
But here a difficulty arose. In the feudal Sum
ma w
e read the follow
ing comm
ent: ‘nec etiam in tractatu nostro quem
super sum
maria cognitione dixim
us denotandum’. 15 S
ince there was
considerable evidence that the Super summ
aria cognitione was
written by Johannes Faseolus, it w
as argued that he must have
also been the author of the feudal Summ
a. 16 Tw
o further pieces of evidence supported this option. F
irstly, the explicit of the
feudal treatise,
as it
appears in
the m
anuscript from
P
arma,
attributes the text to Johannes Faseolus. 17 Secondly, B
aldus de U
baldis ascribed the Summ
a to Faseolus in the proemium
to his In usus feudorum
, dated by Gérard G
iordanengo to 1393. 18 Thus
it would appear that all three w
orks, that is the Super summ
aria cognitione, the Sum
ma super usibus feudorum
and the Summ
a iuris canonici, w
ere written by the sam
e author. 19 B
ut why w
ould a ‘Johannes Faseolus’ be referred to as ‘Johannes dom
ini Guidonis de
Ancona’?
20 Furthermore, is
it possible that an A
nconitan would receive citizenship in P
isa, and hold
there the
important
positions w
e know
w
ere held
by Faseolus?
21 R
ecently, Martin B
ertram m
ade a discovery that solves this problem
most elegantly. H
e discovered a manuscript
which includes a T
ractatus de summ
aria cognitione, different from
the one by Faseolus, written by ‘Johannes dom
ini Guidonis
de Ancona civilis iuris professor’. 22 T
hus, the puzzle is solved.
15 M
affei, Giuristi 75; N
ürnberg, Stadtbibl. C
ent. II 90, fol. 271rb. [Cited
below as N
]. 16 M
affei, Giuristi 75-76.
17 T
he text
also acknow
ledges the
possibility that
Martinus
Syllim
anus inserted changes into the Sum
ma: ‘E
xplicit summ
a super usibus feudorum
composita a dom
ino Iohanne Phaseolo pisano legum doctore. Q
uam quidam
ascribunt dom
ino Martino de S
ulimano bononiensi legum
doctori qui forte huic sum
me aliqua addidit’. P
arma, B
ibl. Palatina, Parm
. 1227, fol. 84r. R
egarding the attribution of the Summ
a to Syllim
anus see the appendix below.
18 Bukow
ska Gorgoni, ‘F
agioli’ 168; Giordanengo, ‘L
es feudistes’ 130. 19 M
affei, Giuristi 75-77.
20 Bertram
, ‘Johannes de Ancona’ 59.
21 Cortese, ‘D
omenico M
affei’ 257-258; Bukow
ska Gorgoni, ‘F
agioli’ 169. 22 ‘E
gregie subtilitatis viro domino M
artino de Ancio iuris perito honorabili
iudici et assessori civitatis Anc. Johannes dom
ini Guidonis de A
ncona civilis iuris professor salutem
et optatum de sum
maria cognitione tractatum
’. Martin
188 JO
NA
TH
AN
RU
BIN
John of Ancona w
rote all three works: the Sum
ma super usibus
feudorum, the Sum
ma iuris canonici and a hitherto unknow
n T
ractatus de summ
aria cognitione.
Just like the canonistic Summ
a, the feudal Summ
a was
also written in the L
atin Kingdom
of Jerusalem. T
hat is made
clear first and foremost by the inform
ation it provides regarding the kingdom
’s juridical system. 23 T
he mention of figures active
in the Latin K
ingdom also supports the S
umm
a’s connection to O
utremer. O
f the fourteen names w
hich are mentioned in the text
as examples
for different arguments (not taking into account
jurists, who are m
entioned as expressing various opinions), nine can clearly be identified as living in the K
ingdom of Jerusalem
, 24 and four are m
entioned as living in Italy. 25
B
ertram w
as so kind as to send me a yet unpublished w
ork of his in which this
citation appears. The text is found in: D
urham, C
athedral C.III.9 (284 fol.;
perg; 330x200; s. XIIIex.), fol. 215va-216va. T
his discovery will be published
by Bertram
as an addition to the reprint of his 1977 paper in: Martin B
ertram,
Sine praeiudicio melioris sententiae: K
anonisten und ihre Texte (1234 bis ca. 1350) (E
ducation and Society in the M
iddle Ages and R
enaissance 43; Leiden
2012). 23 T
hree cases in which the S
umm
a explicitly refers to the kingdom’s juridical
system are studied below
. To these should be added John’s description of a
feudal contract, which begins w
ith the words ‘N
os H. D
ei gratia rex Ierusalem
vel C
ypry vel
nos om
nes [probably
a corruption
of: com
es] Iopp[e]n
[=Jaffa]…
’ N, fol. 271r. I intend to exam
ine John’s discussion of the feudal contract elsew
here. 24 T
he persons who can clearly be identified as living in the L
atin Kingdom
of Jerusalem
are:
dominus
Stephanus
de S
avegni, dom
inus Iacobus
Vitalis,
dominus
Iohannes de
Biblio,
dominus
Gerardus
de P
incinum,
Johannes dom
inus Turoni, dom
inus Tibaldus de B
esano, Alm
ericus dominus A
rabis, dom
ina Tyberia
[sic] and
domina
Cesarianis. E
xcept the
two
‘dominae’,
whose nam
es are not mentioned by John, all other figures can easily be traced
in documents found in: R
einhold Röhricht, R
egesta Regni H
ierosolymitani
(MX
CV
II-MC
CX
CI),
and A
dditamentum
(Innsbruck
1893-1904, reprinted
New
York 1960) [henceforth cited as R
RH
]. Regarding the nam
es appearing in the Sum
ma see also: M
eijers, Études d’histoire 3.104. A
ll of these names
are found in N, fol. 263v. John m
ust have known at least som
e of these men
personally: In a pact between the m
erchants of Ancona and the barons of th
e kingdom
, one of the Italian city’s representatives is referred to as ‘Iohan de G
uide’. This m
ust be our author, who, as w
e have seen, was know
n as ‘Johannes dom
ini Guidonis’. T
he same pact m
entions ‘Mesire T
ybaut de
JO
HN
OF
AN
CO
NA
’S S
UM
MA
E 189
But w
hat can one learn about the juridical history of the kingdom
from these texts? M
eijers wrote that the readers w
ho expect to find in the feudal Sum
ma m
any precise details will
quickly be
disappointed. In
his opinion,
‘l’auteur était
un jurisconsulte
beaucoup trop
savante pour
entrer dans
ces détails’. 26
A
very sim
ilar argum
ent w
as m
ade regarding
the Sum
ma iuris canonici. 27 A
nd indeed, neither the feudal Summ
a nor the canonistic one explicitly im
parts numerous descriptions
of the Latin K
ingdom
’s juridical system. B
ut does that mean that
scholars studying the juridical history of the Latin E
ast can learn nothing from
these works? In order to answ
er this question, one m
ust, first, assess the circumstances in w
hich the ‘summ
ae’ were
written,
and, in
particular, their
connection to
Outrem
er’s juridical arena.
As w
e have already
seen, the canonistic Summ
a was
written by John of A
ncona in Outrem
er between 1265-1268. T
his text is, as John him
self wrote, an adaptation of G
offredo da T
rani’s Summ
a super titulis decretalium. 28 H
e explained his w
ork in his Prologue: 29
B
essan’ and ‘Mesire E
stienne de Sauvegni’. C
odice diplomatico del sacro
militare
ordine G
erosolimitano,
ed. S
ebastiano P
auli (L
ucca 1733-1737)
1.157-158. This docum
ent has recently been republished in: Die U
rkunden der L
ateinischen Könige von Jerusalem
, ed. Hans E
. Mayer (H
annover 2010) 3.1407-1409. 25 T
he missing nam
e is ‘dominus Phillippus dom
inus Cur’ (T
his is the reading of N
. The readings in the other m
anuscripts are not any better). This is
probably a corrupt form of ‘P
hilip lord of Tyre'. John probably referred to
Philippus de M
onfort, whose nam
e appears in numerous docum
ents (RR
H,
Vol. 1: 1099, 1190, 1221, 1247, 1250, 1259, 1286, 1297, 1331, 1357, 1362,
1363, 1366. Vol. 2: 1249c, 1258a, 1286, 1301a, 1336a, 1360, 1374b, 1374d),
and who is also m
entioned in the above cited pact between A
ncona and the
kingdom’s barons. Pauli, C
odice diplomatico 1.157.
26 Meijers did, how
ever, provide his readers with one exam
ple for a custom of
the kingdom m
entioned in the treatise: He cited a sm
all part of the discussion presented and discussed below
concerning the sale of a fief by a vassal
burdened by debts. Meijers, É
tudes d’histoire 3.105. 27 B
ertram, ‘Johannes de A
ncona’ 62. 28
Goffredo da T
rani, Summ
a super titulis decretalium (L
yon 1519, reprinted A
alen 1992). 29 John's prologue as edited in B
ertram, ‘Johannes de A
ncona’ 60.
190 JO
NA
TH
AN
RU
BIN
…quia cum
in exercicio iudiciorum ecclesiasticorum
frequenter ad
decisionem
multorum
casuum
et
plurimum
utilium
questionum
ad
summ
am
reverendi viri
domini
Goffredi
haberent iudices et advocati recursum, ibi propter brevitatem
tractatus
quod querebant
non poterant
invenire. S
icque contingebat quod vel iudex vel litigantes in dubio constituti casus cogebantur relinquere indecisos…
Ideoque ego Johannes de A
ncona…ut facilior sit copia disserendi notavi et excerpsi
non sine magno labore ex corpore iuris canonici et ex notis
diversimodis specialiter probabilium
doctorum quecum
que ad proprietatem
cuiuslibet tractatus credidi pertinere, adnectens in singulis titulis de facto plurim
as questiones, per quas multa que
prius erant dubia declarantur. In other w
ords, as John noted that canonists were unable to solve
problems
they faced
using G
offredo’s
Summ
a, and
were
therefore forced to either leave cases undecided or go through m
uch literature until they could find what they w
ere looking for, he decided to insert into that Sum
ma m
aterial that he thought w
ould be useful to its users. When w
e take into consideration that John w
as motivated into com
piling this text by Patriarch
William
of Jerusalem and by W
illiam of L
autario, archdeacon of A
cre, 30 and that the work w
as dedicated to the Patriarch (as w
ell as
to John
Bonus,
bishop of
Ancona), 31
we
must
reach the
conclusion that, at least partially, this Summ
a was intended to
meet the particular needs of the city’s clergy. In other w
ords, at least to a certain extent, w
hat we have before us is a local
adaptation of an important and w
ell known w
estern canon law
text. 32
We know
much less about the process that resulted in
John’s feudal Summ
a. As w
e have shown above, this text w
as w
ritten in 1258-1266, in the Latin kingdom
of Jerusalem. It
includes neither a dedication, nor a discussion of the men or
circumstances, w
hich encouraged John to compose it. H
owever,
this text can also be seen as an adaptation of a well know
n
30 B
ertram, ‘Johannes de A
ncona’ 61. 31
Ibid. 59. 32 S
ome explicit references to O
utremer appearing in the Sum
ma are presented
in: Bertram
, ‘Johannes de Ancona’ 62-64.
JO
HN
OF
AN
CO
NA
’S S
UM
MA
E 191
western
work.
Like
all thirteenth-century
feudal ‘sum
mae’,
John’s is also inspired, directly or indirectly, by Pillius’s Sum
ma
feudorum. 33
Its local
nature can
be seen
by the
fact that
it includes
considerable m
aterial specifically
relevant to
the kingdom
.
In other words, the picture that arises from
these two texts
is one of a learned jurist, residing in Acre, becom
ing acquainted w
ith its juridical system and producing w
orks intended for the use of local jurists. T
his must m
ean that John confronted in his treatises issues he encountered in the kingdom
. The rest of this
paper is dedicated to the presentation and analysis of John’s
discussion of several such issues. W
ho Should T
each Law
?
One issue that seem
s to have troubled John was w
ho should teach law
: 34
Secundum
leges nemo debet recipi ad docendum
leges nisi sit exam
inatus et approbatus a cetu, C de m
agistris qui in urbe constantinopolitana l.i. 35 et sic et observatur de facto bononie [m
ale banoine]
quando assum
itur conventus
ut exam
inatus prius si dignus fuerit approbetur et detur ei licentia docendi. S
ic etiam
parisius in theologia et merito quia indocti alios docere
nequeunt nec doctrinam insinuare quam
non habent.
John argues here, in essence, that one should not be allowed to
teach law if he has not passed som
e kind of examination. T
hese com
ments should be read against the background of O
utremer’s
culture: as is well know
n, the famous jurists of O
utremer gained
their knowledge from
elders with long years of experience in the
courts, rather than from certified teachers. 36 S
upporters of the
33
Giordanengo, ‘L
es feudistes’ 74-75, 97-99, 103-104, 113-115 and passim.
34 Brugge, fol. 286ra.
35 C
od. 12.15.1. 36
The best-know
n example is that of P
hilip of Novara: L
e Livre de F
orme
122. John of Ibelin also writes that he learned w
hat he knew from
experienced jurists. John of Ibelin, L
e Livre 56.
192 JO
NA
TH
AN
RU
BIN
rising learned law, such as John, obviously had other ideas w
ith regard to the question of w
ho should teach law, and here John
had an
opportunity to
express them
. T
he lack
of a
similar
discussion in the parallel section of Go
ffredo’s work supports the
suggestion that this passage was inserted by John as a reaction to
circumstances he encountered in the E
ast. 37 We thus have before
us here
a unique
expression of
a controversy
in O
utremer
regarding the question of who should instruct jurists. 38
How
D
oes O
ne D
ecide w
hen C
onflicting C
ustoms
Exist
in N
eighboring Churches?
A
nother characteristic of Frankish society which left its
marks in John’s w
ork is the proximity of churches follow
ing different
customs.
Given
this situation,
it m
ust have
been difficult to determ
ine according to which set of rules decisions
should be made. In his canonistic Sum
ma, John m
ade an attempt
to face this difficulty, suggesting some param
eters for deciding w
hich custom should prevail: 39
Q
uid autem
si
diverse fuerint
consuetudines in
diversis proxim
is ecclesiis?
Tunc
consuetudo m
etropolitane ecclesie
observanda est, xii. di. De hiis, 40 uel m
elius dic servari quod com
modius conservari potest sine preiudicio aliorum
ut l. e. c. C
um olim
. in fine41 et arg. xii. di. N
ovit. 42 Alii dicunt illam
servandam
que minus tribuit arg. ff. de leg. iii. N
umm
is. 43
One possibility suggested by John is fo
llowing the custom
of the m
etropolitan church.
The
second possibility
is choosing
the
37 G
offredo, Summ
a ad X 5.5, 409-411.
38 This does not m
ean, however, that people like John did not appreciate
knowledge held by local jurists w
ho must have had no university education: In
his feudal treatise, John mentioned Iacobus V
italis and Stephanus de Savegny
as ‘homo sapiens pre ceteris in consuetudinibus huius regni’ (N
, fol. 263v). 39
Brugge, fol. 13va. I have found no parallel discussion in G
offredo’s work.
40 D
.12 c.13. 41
X 1.4.6.
42 D
.12 c.10. 43
Dig. 32.1.75(73).
JO
HN
OF
AN
CO
NA
’S S
UM
MA
E 193
custom w
hich can be followed w
ithout damaging the holders of
other customs. T
he third option seems, at a first glance, rather
obscure. Looking at the cited law
from the D
igest, however, it
becomes clear that John cited an opinion of other jurists w
ho argued that the selected custom
should be the one which is less
costly. T
he Controversy C
oncerning Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction
In one case, John’s discussio
n reveals unknown aspects
of the
controversy concerning
the authority
of ecclesiastical
courts. In his feudal Sum
ma, John w
rote: 44
Cum
autem inter extraneum
qui non est vasallus et vasallum
lis45 oritur de feudo tunc sive extraneus possideat sive agat erit
iudex ordinarius possessoris, ut xi. Quia experientie
46 et de foro com
pet. Cum
sit, 47 non dominus feudi quia non potest esse
iudex in re sua litigatore extraneo recusante, C. ne quis in sua
causa iudex sit. 48 Sic extra de iudic. c. N
ovit. 49 Et ideo puto
errare advocatos cismarinos qui ad declinandum
forum ecclesie
allegant milites possessores esse feudatarios et rem
habere in feudum
a rege coram50 quo paratos offerunt se respondere, si
quidem propter hoc non tenetur actor agere coram
51 domino
feudi ratione predicta quia in sua causa non debet esse iudex. V
erisimile est enim
quod dominus feudi iudicaret pocius esse
suam rem
quam actoris iure proprii dom
inii vendicantis ut dicta lege, C
. ne quis in sua causa iud. l.i. in fine52 et ff. de iur. om
.
44
The text presented here is, unless otherw
ise stated, that of N, fol. 271r.
Readings of other m
anuscripts are used when they are substantially better. In
such cases a footnote will m
ention both the source of the reading used and N’s
reading. The m
anuscripts used for that purpose are Paris, B
NF
lat. 16008 [henceforth
cited as F
1 ], fol.
78v-79r, and
Bam
berg, S
taatsbibl. C
an. 48
[henceforth cited as B], fol. 185v.
45 Thus in B
. N: lix.
46 C.11 q.1 c.15.
47 T
hus in F1 . N
: Causa sit. T
he reference is to X 2.2.8.
48 Cod. 3.5.
49 X 2.1.13.
50 Thus in F
1 . N: om
. 51 T
hus in B. N
: contra. In the margin of N
, another hand added: coram.
52 C
od. 3.5.1.
194 JO
NA
TH
AN
RU
BIN
iud. l.
Qui
iurisdictioni. 53 Item
m
erito ut
suspectus poterit
recusari quia
dominus
est adversarii,
extra de
offic. del.
Causam
que
54 inter 55
et c.
Insinuante. 56
Item
per hanc
exceptionem
non declinant
iudicium
ecclesie sed
pocius se
submittunt i. astringunt iurisdictioni ecclesie apertissim
a ratione videlicet quia in regno Ierusalem
non est alius iudex secularis nisi rex vel eius officiales qui cum
non possint esse iudices <
ut> in causa sua ut dictum
est iam necessario deficiente iudice
seculari ecclesia
erit iudex,
et ita
fuit actenus
iuste contra
milites iudicatum
propter imperitiam
advocati s. quod debeant coram
iudice ecclesiastico respondere, ad quod facit extra de foro com
pet. c. Licet, 57 ibi 58 ‘ad iudicem
secularem recurrere
nequeant’ et
c. E
x tenore, 59
ibi ‘dum
modo
per iudicem
secularem
’, et cetera. Consultius ergo facient 60 possessores si
conventi sim
pliciter se
asserant possidere
<quo
casu actor
quicumque>
asserantque
61 se
paratos coram
ordinario
suo iudice respondere. Q
uo casu actor quicumque sit clericus vel
laicus debet reum possessorem
coram suo, scilicet rei, iudice
convenire secundum notam
regulam: actor sequitur forum
rei. C
. ubi in rem act. excer. debeat l.ii. 62 et ff. de iudic. l. H
eres absens, in principio et §
finali 63 et in Aut. ut clerici apud
proprios episcop. conven. i. rubrica, coll. vi. 64 In other w
ords, when there is a judicial dispute over a fief
between a vassal and a foreigner w
ho is not a vassal, the judge should be the ordinarius of the possessor, rather than the lord of the fief. T
hat is so since no one should be allowed to judge in his
53 D
ig. 2.1.10. 54 T
hus in B. N
: qui. 55 X
1.29.17. The incipit of the proper paragraph is: ‘C
ausam, quae inter…
’ 56 X
1.29.25. 57
X
2.2.10:
‘Liceat
tamen
ipsis…ad
tuam…
vel ad
nostram…
audientiam
appellare, hoc praesertim tem
pore, quo… ad iudicem
saecularem recurrere
nequeunt’. 58 T
hus in F1 . N
: om.
59 X
2.2.11: ‘Nos…
mandam
us, quatenus…ei supersedere curetis, dum
modo
per iudicem saecularem
suam possit iustitiam
obtinere; alioquin…causam
ipsam
…ratione praevia term
inetis’. 60 T
hus in B. N
: faciet. 61 T
hus in F1 . N
: offerantque. 62
Cod. 3.19.2. It seem
s likely that John originally cited l.3, rather than 2. 63 D
ig. 5.1.19. 64
Auth. 6.11.1 (N
ov. 83.1).
JO
HN
OF
AN
CO
NA
’S S
UM
MA
E 195
own m
atter when the foreign party objects to it. W
hat John must
have had in mind is that in such a situation the lord w
ould obviously
be interested
in having
his vassal
hold the
fief. C
onsequently, he
may
be unable
to judge
impartially.
His
authority must therefore be lim
ited. John then describes what he
sees as a mistake on the part of local advocates: T
hey refuse to appear in ecclesiastical courts arguing that their clients hold fiefs from
the king and that, therefore, they are prepared to appear before him
, but not before an ecclesiastical court. On the basis of
his previous
argument,
John sees
this claim
as
self- contradictory:
If indeed these
men
hold fiefs
from the king,
having him judge in a case they have against som
eone who is not
a vassal of his would obviously be problem
atic, and the ‘non-vassal’ party w
ould be able to refuse his judgment. A
s, according to
John, in
the kingdom
there
is no
secular judge
who
is independent of the king, cases such as the aforem
entioned must
be tried in ecclesiastical courts. John also says that, accordingly, rulings w
ere made against knights, because of lack of know
ledge on the part of their law
yers, since they should have referred to ecclesiastical courts. John com
pletes this discussion by advising the holders of land to say that they are prepared to appear before an
ordinarius, adding
that —
as
was
already stated
at the
beginning of
the section
—
such a
case w
ould have
to be
presented before the possessor’s judge. A
sim
ilar point
is m
ade by
John in
his canon
law
Summ
a: 65 E
t ideo
puto m
inus provide
avocatos antiquos
cismarinos
opposuisse coram iudice ecclesie exceptionem
de foro contra prelatos
vendicantes rem
esse
feudalem
et se
paratos esse
coram
feudi dom
ino respondere.
Nam
actor
clericus vel
ecclesia, qui non est vassallus, non debet coram dom
ino feudi agere tali casu et m
erito hoc in contrarium opponentis secutum
65
Brugge, fol. 93va. T
his section was published in: B
ertram, ‘Johannes de
Ancona’ 63. Just preceding this discussion John m
akes an argument very
similar to the one w
ith which he opened the above-presented section from
his feudal treatise: In a case betw
een a vassal and a non-vassal on land the form
er claim
s to hold as a fief, the judge should not be the lord of that fief, but rather the ‘ordinarius loci’.
196 JO
NA
TH
AN
RU
BIN
in regno Ierusalem, quia si non invenitur alius ordinarius in
regno quam rex, qui [est] dom
inus feudi et coram ipso non
debet actor
ut dictum
est
experiri, tunc
in defectu
iudicis secularis oportet quod iudex ecclesiasticus sit iudex et coram
eo questio ventiletur, infra eodem
Licet; 66 et sic est actenus per
legatos Rom
ane curie iudicatum.
H
ere the
emphasis
is on
litigation betw
een clerics
and lay
landholders. John confronts the claim of advocates that, as the
contested matter is feudal, it should be presented before a feudal
lord, rather
than before
an ecclesiastic.
He
argues that
ecclesiastics who are not vassals do not have to agree to be tried
before a feudal lord. As in the K
ingdom of Jerusalem
there is no ordinarius except the king, w
ho is in fact a feudal lord, such cases should be presented before an ecclesiastic. John supports his argum
ents by actual juridical decisions: He w
rites that the aforem
entioned claim w
as rejected in the kingdom and that such
was also the decision of the papal legates.
What can one learn from
these texts about the juridical discourse in A
cre? Firstly, w
e can see that although it had been agreed, since as early as 1120, that the C
hurch had jurisdiction in various kinds of cases, 67 the lim
its of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, in particular w
ith regard to feudal matters, w
ere contested at the tim
e John was w
riting his feudal Summ
a (1258-1266). 68 Som
e
66
X 2.2.10.
67 Benjam
in Z. K
edar, ‘On the O
rigins of the Earliest L
aws of F
rankish Jerusalem
: The C
anons of the Council of N
ablus, 1220’, Speculum 74 (1999)
331-334. F
or later
evidence on
ecclesiastical jurisdiction,
see: L
ivre des assises de la cour des bourgeois 2.27-28. 68
This piece of evidence m
akes it hard to accept Marw
an Nader’s opinion that
‘the king,
his lords,
the C
hurch and
the courts
were
agreed as
to the
parameters
of ecclesiastical
jurisdiction’. M
arwan
Nader,
Burgesses
and B
urgess Law
in the Latin K
ingdoms of Jerusalem
and Cyprus 1099-1325
(Aldershot 2006) 182. R
egarding the church courts in the kingdom, see also:
John L. L
a Monte, F
eudal Monarchy in the L
atin Kingdom
of Jerusalem,
1100-1291 (Cam
bridge Mass. 1932) 109-110. N
ader’s opinion is perhaps based
on L
a M
onte’s, see
ibid. 215-216.
For
an older
account of
the kingdom
’s ecclesiastical courts, see: Gaston D
odu, Histoire des institutions
monarchiques dans la R
oyaume latin de Jérusalem
1099-1291 (Paris 1894)
325-328.
JO
HN
OF
AN
CO
NA
’S S
UM
MA
E 197
land holders, supported by local advocates, were inclined at the
time to evade ecclesiastical courts. John, on the other hand, tried
to w
iden the jurisdiction of such courts. T
hat this debate was not theoretical is dem
onstrated by tw
o documents, dating to 1254. 69 In them
we read about a case,
presented in
Rom
e, between the T
eutonic order and A
imery
Barlays, concerning the contested ow
nership of two villages. A
m
ajor part
of the
discussion focused
on the
question of
jurisdiction. Rejecting the T
eutonic claim that, being ‘persone
religiose’, they
had to
be tried
by an
ecclesiastic, A
imery’s
representative argued that since the villages in question had been fiefs of the kingdom
, the Teutonic brothers could have been
summ
oned to appear (‘conveniri poterant’) before the king so as before a feudal lord. H
e added that as Aim
ery began the case as a feudal one, the T
eutonic knights were obligated to obey their
summ
ons at least so that it would be decided w
hether the case belo
nged to the king’s jurisdiction. The T
eutonic procurator, on the other hand, claim
ed, inter alia, in a manner rem
iniscent of John’s argum
ent, that the rule that feudal matters should be tried
before the fief’s lord applies only in a case between tw
o who
acknowledge holding a fief from
the same lord. O
therwise, it
may seem
that the landlord judges in his own case. 70 T
he Papal
curia’s decision w
as in favor of the Teutonic order. 71 T
his case show
s that John’s discussion w
as not detached from the juridical
reality of the kingdom. In fact, argum
ents similar to the ones he
mentioned w
ere used in litigation.
69
Tabulae ordinis T
heutonici, ed. E
rnst Strehlke
(Berlin 1869, reprinted
Toronto 1975) 85-88.
70 ‘Q
uod autem
dicitur
questionem
feudalem
coram
domino
feodi esse
tractandam, tunc dem
um locum
habere dicebat, cum vertitur inter duos, qui
feodum ab eodem
domino recognoscunt, ne alias videatur in causa propria
iudicare’. Strehlke, T
abulae 86. 71 T
he connection between this case and John’s discussion w
as first suggested by
Jonathan R
iley-Sm
ith w
hen B
enjamin
Z.
Kedar
presented the
feudal Sum
ma in a w
orkshop held at the Institute of Advanced S
tudies of the Hebrew
U
niversity in 1999 (I thank Benjam
in Z. K
edar for this comm
ent). Regarding
this case, cf. Jonathan Riley-S
mith, T
he Feudal N
obility and the Kingdom
of Jerusalem
1174-1277 (London 1973) 188-189.
198 JO
NA
TH
AN
RU
BIN
Furthermore, a com
parison between John’s discussions o
f this controversy im
plies that the discourse regarding this issue w
as not static. As w
e have seen, in the feudal treatise, dated to 1258-1266, w
e read: ‘…puto errare advocatos cism
arinos qui…
allegant…’ T
he canon law S
umm
a, on the other hand, reads: ‘…
puto m
inus provide
avocatos antiquos
cismarinos
opposuisse…’T
he difference between the tw
o texts reveals that w
hile John
was
writing
the canonical
Sum
ma
(1265-8), circum
stances had changed, and lawyers w
ere no longer arguing against ecclesiastical jurisdiction by claim
ing that the matter at
hand was feudal and that they w
ere therefore prepared to appear before their feudal lord, and not before an ecclesiastical court.
Another
issue raised
by the
two
passages deserves
particular attention. As w
as mentioned, the feudal Sum
ma clearly
states that in the Kingdom
of Jerusalem there w
ere no secular judges other than the king and his officials. T
he same is said, in a
somew
hat more im
plicit manner, in the canon law
Summ
a as w
ell. T
hese com
ments
are som
ewhat
difficult to
understand, since som
e lords obviously had the right of judgment. 72 John of
Ancona’s statem
ents may be explained, in part, by the A
ssise sur la ligece, w
hich made all knights ‘peers’ of their lords and their
fellow
knights, w
ith regard
to the
king. 73 C
onsequently, the
Assise w
eakened the local noble courts and strengthened the pow
er of
the ‘H
aute cour’. 74
This
partially supports
John’s com
ment. A
dditionally, some of the lordships w
hich had courts did
not exist
at the tim
e John
of A
ncona w
rote his
works,
because they
were
occupied by
the M
uslims.
Others
were
72 John of Ibelin, L
e Livre 603-606; P
eter W. E
dbury, John of Ibelin and the K
ingdom
of Jerusalem
(W
oodbridge 1997)
155-156. O
bviously, John
of Ibelin’s list includes lordships w
hich, while John of A
ncona was w
riting, were
no longer in Frankish hands. How
ever, some seigneurial courts m
ust have been active during the thirteenth century as w
ell. 73
Praw
er, Crusader Institutions 41.
74 Riley-S
mith, F
eudal Nobility 35.
JO
HN
OF
AN
CO
NA
’S S
UM
MA
E 199
transferred to
the m
ilitary orders. 75
Both
processes probably
weakened secular jurisdiction. 76
One m
ay also understand John’s com
ment as a polem
ic statem
ent rather than a descriptive one: Perhaps he w
as trying, in his discussion of this m
atter, to weaken the pow
er of the baronial courts, w
hile supporting the ‘Haute cour’. T
his may be connected
to John’s perception of the king. In a description of the form
of feudal oath in the feudal Sum
ma John of A
ncona writes: ‘Item
iuvabo et defendam
ipsum
dom
inum…
contra omnes
homines
huius mundi excepta persona im
peratoris…vel regis vel alterius
domini cui subest’. 77 In other w
ords, a vassal was not supposed
to aid his lord against the king. The local juridical tradition seem
s to have given the king a m
uch weaker position, and John of
Ibelin is significantly less decisive about this question, putting m
uch more stress on the com
mitm
ent to the ‘premier seignor’
than to that toward the chief lord. 78 It is thus likely that in John of
Ancona’s w
ork we encounter an issue w
hich is really a part of one
of the
main
juridical controversies
that characterized
thirteenth-century Acre, concerning the com
mitm
ent due to the king versus that due to one’s im
mediate lord.
T
he Selling of F
iefs in Cases of F
inancial Distress
John treated another issue w
hich stood at the center of juridical discourse in O
utremer: the selling of fiefs in order to
repay debts. The selling of fiefs w
as obviously problematic in
any feudal system, as it threatened to w
eaken the military pow
ers of the overlord. T
his problem certainly existed in O
utremer and,
contrary to the
issue of
ecclesiastical jurisdiction,
was
often
75
Edbury, John of Ibelin 167.
76 Peter E
dbury wrote, concerning lordships taken over by the m
ilitary orders, that ‘the m
ilitary orders could well have dispensed w
ith having to convene the seigneurial courts…
they [the military orders] m
ight have deliberately sought w
ays of getting rid of any existing vassals’. Ibid. 161. 77
B, fol. 176v.
78 John of Ibelin, L
e Livre 439, 443, 467. John does, how
ever, say that in case of a conflict betw
een the imm
ediate lord and the ‘chief seignor’, a vassal should, under specific circum
stances, leave the former: Ibid. 443-446.
200 JO
NA
TH
AN
RU
BIN
discussed by its jurists. In general, it was prohibited to sell fiefs.
The exception had to do w
ith cases in which the vassal w
as burdened by a grave debt. 79 T
he earliest juridical work from
the L
atin East, the L
ivre au roi, dating to around 1200, 80 says that w
hen a vassal holding a fief is burdened by a debt which he has
no means to pay back, except by selling his fief, and w
hich w
ould prevent him from
exercising his feudal obligations, he m
ust present
this state of
affairs to
his lord, supporting
his announcem
ent with an oath. T
he lord is then to approve the sale. T
he vassal is then to declare the sale in three towns. T
he author of the L
ivre adds various conditions with regard to the tim
e and place of the sale, giving precedence, in purchasing the property, to
the vassal’s
lord or
relatives. T
he section
ends w
ith the
enumeration of the kinds of people w
ho are not permitted to buy
fiefs. 81
There
is som
e evidence
that at
least som
e of
these regulations
were
practiced. In
Septem
ber 1231,
a certain
Nicholas sold his fief in M
anuet to the Hospitaller order. In the
document describing this transaction w
e read the following: 82
…
cum N
icholaus…feodum
suum…
pro utilitate et necessitate sua
in curia
regia exposuisset
ad vendendum
, ac
juxta consuetudinem
regni
Jerosolimitani
apud A
ccon, T
yrum
et C
esaream
venditionem
feodi clam
are fecisset...dom
ui H
ospitalis Jerusalem…
dictum feodum
… vendidit.
A
lthough not all of the elements m
entioned in the Livre appear
here, this document does support som
e of the information pro
-vided by the treatise, particularly the need to declare the sale of a fief in three tow
ns. 83
79
Edbury, ‘F
eudal Obligations’ 343.
80 G
reilsamm
er, Le livre au roi 83-86. 81 Ibid. 269-272. 82 C
artulaire 2.425. 83
Also related to this issue is a docum
ent in which w
e read about the sale of Johannes T
ortus’s house in Acre. A
ccording to the document, Johannes asked
the curia for permission to sell a house he ow
ned in Acre in order to pay off
his debts. At first this request w
as rejected. Later, how
ever, Johannes said that because of his debts he had no choice but to sell either his fief or his house.
JO
HN
OF
AN
CO
NA
’S S
UM
MA
E 201
Philip of N
ovara also discussed this issue. His description
of the assise is, in general, similar to that of the L
ivre au roi, including,
for exam
ple, the
mention
of the
local custom
of
declaring the
sale in
three tow
ns. 84 T
he m
ost substantial
difference is that here the lord, rather than the vassal, is in charge of the selling process. L
ike the anonymous author of the L
ivre, P
hilip also
gives precedence,
in the
buying of
the fiefs
to relatives of the vassal. H
e then writes that the buyer m
ust be a person w
ho can provide the services that are related to the fief, adding
several lim
itations concerning
the buyer’s
family
and background.
John of Ibelin also discussed the Assise de vente in his
famous treatise, com
pleted between 1264-1266. 85 In his L
ivre, John dedicates a long section to the A
ssise de vente. In general lines, his discussion is sim
ilar to Philip’s, including, am
ong other elem
ents, the need to declare the sale in three cities. 86 John’s discussion is, how
ever, much m
ore elaborate, and he discusses m
any issues which w
ere not mentioned by P
hilip or by the author of the L
ivre au roi. A
t about the same tim
e, but coming from
a different
tradition, John of Ancona treated the sam
e issue in his feudal treatise.
The
discussion appears
within
the context
of the
question of whether a vassal is allow
ed to alienate fiefs. John starts this passage by referring to feudal contracts that concede the vassal’s right to alienate his fief. In such cases, says John, he w
ould be able to do that without the w
ill of his lord (‘sine domini
voluntate’). He continues: 87
T
he bailly of the kingdom took counsel regarding this issue and it w
as decided to perm
it the sale of the house in order to enable Johannes to keep his fief. H
ere we see the need to get perm
ission even for the sale of non-feudal property, and the im
portance attributed to the preservation of fiefs. Strehlke,
Tabulae 33. T
his document has recently been republished in M
ayer, Urkunden
3.1350-1351. 84 Philip of N
ovara, Le L
ivre de Form
e 77-78. 85 John of Ibelin, Le Livre 2. 86
Ibid. 409. 87 T
he text presented here is, unless otherwise stated, that of N
, fol. 265v. W
here the readings of B, fol. 179v are better, they appear w
ithin the text, with
202 JO
NA
TH
AN
RU
BIN
Sed si hoc non esset ut dictum
est concessum vasallo, sed
simpliciter est concessio rei facta, an aliquo casu alienabit sine
domini voluntate? E
t videtur quod sic. Solutio: si vasallus est
debitis obligatus
quod nequid
solvere aliunde
secundum
consuetudinem regni Ierusalem
vendet feudum, et de precio
solvet debitum suum
, et sic neccessitate suadente permittitur
alienatio que
non perm
itteretur alias, rubrica in libro
feud. qualiter iurare debet vas. dom
ino c. [?] 88 et § E contrario; 89 in
‘necessitate namque suadente’ et capitulum
ubi permittit partem
alienare aliqua parte retenta. 90 S
ed quidam dicunt ibi referri 91
quia antiquo tempore fieri poterat alienatio in parte, non autem
hodie sic licebit, rubrica de vasallo qui contra constitutionem
L
otharii c. Si vasallus contra constitutionem
92 et rubrica de
a reference. John shortly m
entions this subject also in his canon law w
ork: ‘Item
pro
debito alienari
si vasallus non habet
unde alias solvere
possit m
axime m
obilia secundum consuetudinem
regni iherusalem sed an potest
totum
pignori obligare?’
Brugge,
fol. 196r.
Interestingly, describing
the circum
stances in which his grandfather, H
ugh of Gibelet, sold landed property
to the Hospitallers, B
artholomeo of G
ibelet stated that Hugh sold his property
‘por ce que il estoit chargiez de grant dete…et que il n’avoit m
euble de quei il se peust acuitier de la dite dete…
’ Jean Richard, ‘L
e comté de T
ripoli dans les chartes du fonds des P
orcellet’, BE
C 130.2 (1972) 378. E
vidently, John’s text refers to a preference, also echoed in B
artholomeo’s w
ords, to sell movables,
rather than landed assets, in order to repay debts. 88
Libri feudorum
[=L
F] 2.5; T
here are many early m
odern editions; Karl
Lehm
ann published
a m
odern edition
whose
page num
bers I
will
cite: C
onsuetudines Feudorum
, (Göttingen 1896, reprinted A
alen 1971, ed. Karl
August E
ckhardt) 120. On the origins, glosses, and m
anuscript tradition of the L
ibri feudorum see P
eter Weim
ar, ‘Die H
andschriften des Liber feudorum
und seiner G
lossen’, RID
C 1 1990) 31-98.
89 LF
2.8, Lehm
ann 124. 90 L
F 2.9, L
ehmann 125: ‘N
ecessitate namque suadente poterat olim
vasallus dom
ino inscio vel invito feudi partem vendere retenta videlicet alia parte’.
Obviously, this is a custom
that was not valid w
hen the LF
was com
piled. F
urthermore, it speaks of the partial sale of a fief rather than a full one. It
should be noted that the other juridical texts mention, in this context, only the
sale of full fiefs (Greilsam
mer, L
ivre au roi 269-272; Philip of Novara, L
e L
ivre de Form
e 77-78). John of Ibelin even says explicitly that parts of fiefs can never be sold, w
hile whole fiefs can be sold according to the assise de
vente. John of Ibelin, Le L
ivre 408. 91 T
hus in B. N
: ferri 92 L
F 2.38 in principio, L
ehmann 167: ‘S
i vasallus contra constitutionem
Lotharii regis beneficium
alienaverit, si totum, perdet totum
, si partem, partem
perdet...’
JO
HN
OF
AN
CO
NA
’S S
UM
MA
E 203
feudis, Im
perialem,
circa principium
, 93
vel predicte
constitutiones L
otharii et
Frederici habent
locum
in feudis
italicis. Sciendum
tamen est quod
94 eo casu, quo dictum est
licere vasallo
vendere rem
feudalem
, puto
congrue observandum
ut
vasallus denuntiet
prius dom
ino se
velle vendere et quantum
re vera ab aliquo potest inde habere ut si dom
inus voluerit emere possit prius. E
o autem recusante vel
negligente em
ere infra
duorum
mensium
spacium
post
denuntiationem factam
domino per vasallum
, et tunc ve[n]dere licebit vasallo et in personas non proh
ibitas ius suum transferre,
ut C. de iure em
phyteut. l. ult. 95 Secundum
consuetudines huius regni
faciet vasallus
notificari palam
per
t[r]es proxim
as civitates
et 96 qualiter
vult feudum
vendere
pro debito
persolvendo et
quod plus
offerenti dabitur
sine fraude
et dom
inus feudi non prefertur alii emptori. Item
est sciendum
quod pro
parvo debito
non perm
itteretur de
facili vendere
feudum, sed pocius obliget creditori, qui ex fructibus debitum
sibi solvat, quod si creditor 97 nolit recipere, tunc consciderata debiti quantitate m
ediocrem rem
alienabit consciderata ipsius quantitate qualitate et honore. N
on ergo pro modico debito rem
m
agni precii vendet, ut arg. ff. de rebus eorum qui sub tuttela
vel cura l. Magis § In prim
is98 et C
de sacro. sanct. eccles. aut. H
oc ius porrectum. 99 et in decreto x. q ii. H
oc ius100 et arg. C
de vend. rebus civitatum
l. finali. 101 John starts by asking w
hether, when the right of alienation w
as not conceded in the feudal contract, a vassal w
ould, in any case, be able to alienate his fief w
ithout the will of his lord. It seem
s, John w
rites, that this could be done. He continues referring to the
same custom
we encountered in the abovem
entioned sources: ‘…
if a vassal has debts that he cannot pay back in any other way,
he will, according to the custom
s of the kingdom of Jerusalem
,
93 L
F 2.54 (55), L
ehmann 180.
94 Thus in B
. N: pro.
95 Cod. 4.66.3.
96 Thus in B
. N: om
. 97 T
hus in B. N
: debitor. 98 D
ig. 27.9.5.11. 99 A
uth. post C. 1.2(5).14 (A
uthen. 2.1=N
ov. 7 c.1 and Authen. 9.3=
Nov. 120
c.6.3). 100 C
.10 q.2 c.2. 101 C
od. 11.32(31).3.
204 JO
NA
TH
AN
RU
BIN
sell [his] fief, and, with the m
oney gained pay off his debt’. Thus
John goes further in this matter than the other jurists w
e have m
entioned, arguing that such a sale could be done without the
consent of his lord. 102 Trying to justify this custom
, John cites the L
ibri feudorum
. T
he problem
that
arises here
is that
these quotations, as can be seen from
reading the Libri feudorum
, refer to old custom
s that were no longer in force w
hen John composed
his work. 103 John is aw
are of this difficulty, admitting that som
e believe the cited text is no longer valid, or that it is confined only to Italy. T
his, however, does not lead him
to change his opinion. John then goes on to describe the conditions in w
hich such a sale should be perform
ed: The lord should be notified of
the sale
and the
potential profit
and should
be given
the possibility of purchasing the fief him
self. 104 The vassal w
ould then have tw
o months in w
hich to sell the fief. He w
ould, of course, be able to sell it only to persons legally allow
ed to buy land. It is w
orthwhile to note the difference, in this context,
between John of A
ncona’s work on the one hand and that of the
local jurists on the other: While the three custom
ary treatises get into som
e detail here, 105 John of
Ancona
is satisfied with a
reference to a discussion about the ‘ius emphyteuticum
’ which
includes no reference to the categories with w
hich the other jurists
were
concerned, such
as G
reeks, knights
and ecclesiastics. 106 John continues his discussion by m
entioning the
102 T
his opinion is also opposite to that presented in the LF
2.54, Lehm
ann 180. 103
Such an argum
ent is made in Pillius’s Sum
ma feudorum
: (N, fol. 271v-
272r): ‘Verum
[the ‘v’ is unclear in this manuscript, but is confirm
ed by B,
fol. 186v] hodie non potest etiam m
inima pars alienari sine dom
ini voluntate et si fiat alienatio ad dom
inum feudi libere revertetur nulla prescriptione
obstante quia
quod ab
initio non
tenet non
potest tractatu
temporis
convalescere…’
104 T
he Livre au roi also gives preference to the landlord in buying the fief.
Greilsam
mer, L
e Livre au roi 271. T
hat neither Philip of N
ovara nor John of Ibelin m
ention such preference can be explained by the fact that according to their descriptions the feudal lord is the one w
ho manages the sale.
105 G
reilsamm
er, Le Livre au roi 271-272; Philip of N
ovara, Le Livre de
Form
e 77-78; John of Ibelin, Le L
ivre 421-424. 106
Cod. 4.66.3.
JO
HN
OF
AN
CO
NA
’S S
UM
MA
E 205
local custom of declaring the intended sale in three neighboring
towns. T
he vassal should also state that the lord will be given no
preference as a potential buyer. Finally, John adds that no such
sale should be done in order to pay back a small debt.
It can thus be said that during his stay in the kingdom
John became acquainted w
ith the assise de vente, as well as w
ith custom
s related to it. He tried to fit this assise into the fram
ework
of learned law and, at the sam
e time, presented a description of
the law that differs, in a few
matters, from
that provided by local jurists. It is probable, then, that he w
as also trying to influence the im
plementation of the assise, m
ainly, it would seem
, with
regard to the role of the lord in such a transaction. In this he may
have been trying to counter the influence of men such as P
hilip of N
ovara and John of Ibelin, while supporting a line of thought
closer to that of the Livre au roi.
The A
lienation of Fiefs to the M
ilitary Orders
A
nother problem
, w
hich w
as likely
to have
been particularly severe in O
utremer, w
as the selling of fiefs to the m
ilitary orders. From an early stage of their history, as has been
often m
entioned by
previous historians,
the m
ilitary orders
accumulated m
uch landed property in the kingdom. 107 A
s Joshua P
rawer has w
ritten, this created military and legal problem
s. 108 O
ne issue was that of m
ilitary service. How
ever, as the military
107 N
umerous exam
ples for transfers of property to the military orders can be
found in Steven T
ibble, Monarchy and L
ordships in the Latin K
ingdom of
Jerusalem, 1099-1291 (O
xford 1989). That grants to the m
ilitary orders were
customary in the kingdom
is also attested to by Philip of N
ovara: ‘…que en
cest pais est l’usage autant vaillable come l’assise, et l’on set bien que en
cestui pais a esté toz jorz usé au tenz des rois et des seignors que les homes
des roys si ont doné, vendu et eschangié plusors choses as religions, chasteaus et viles et casaus et autres rentes, de quoi il ne firent onques hom
age ne nulle redevance, et l’ont toz jors enssi usé’. Philip of N
ovara, Le Livre de F
orme
196. 108
Joshua P
rawer, T
he Latin K
ingdom of Jerusalem
: European C
olonialism in
the M
iddle A
ges [T
itle of
Am
erican edition:
The
Crusaders’
Kingdom
] (L
ondon 1972) 268.
206 JO
NA
TH
AN
RU
BIN
orders w
ere the
strongest fighting
powers
in O
utremer,
that seem
s to have been a relatively minor issue. A
more com
plex problem
was that of the status of the order as landlord. W
as the m
ilitary order to be perceived as a vassal of the crown? W
as it expected to perform
‘homagium
’ to the king? Was it to be a
mem
ber of the ‘Haute cour’?
It is therefore not surprising that John of A
ncona included in his feudal Sum
ma an elaborate discussion of the question of
whether vassals can grant fiefs to the m
ilitary orders. The context
in which he raises this question is that of grants, m
ade by vassals, to the C
hurch. John says that such transactions are legal if done w
ith the consent of the lord. But w
hat if the grant is to be done w
ithout such consent? John argues that in such a case the answer
seems to be negative. H
e then goes on, writing: 109
Q
uid autem si habiles sunt hom
ines ecclesie ad serviendum
domino
cum
armis
sicut sunt
hospitalarii vel
templarii
vel teotonici, qui prae aliis secularibus possunt iuvare dom
inum
contra hostes,
maxim
e in
regno Ierusalem
, ubi
sunt ad
offendendum
ostes et
ad defensionem
terre
christianorum
potentialiter constituti?
Videtur
predicta ratio
prohibitionis cessare. S
ed instabis: non cessat infinitas illa quia ecclesiasti[ci] sunt hom
ines qui non possunt mori sine herede ut dictum
est supra. S
ed ad hanc posset 110 probabiliter responderi ut sicut quando constituitur ususf[ructus] civitati tenet quam
vis civitas sem
per duret ut tamen usque in c. an[nos], quibus finitis ad
dominum
reddeat
huius ususf[ructus],
sic dicatur
durare feudum
111 ecclesie
usque ad
c. annos,
quibus finitis,
ad dom
inum revertetur. L
ex optima ad hoc ut ff. de usufruct. A
n ususfructus. 112 P
ar enim est ecclesia et civitas quo ad ista. C
. de sacro sanct. eccles. l. V
t inter divinum113 et sic notatur predicta
l. An ususfructus
114 et facit ff. de usuf. le. l. <Si ususfructus>
109
The reading presented here is, unless otherw
ise stated, that of N, fol. 266r.
Where the readings of B
, fol. 180r are better, they appear within the text, w
ith a reference. 110 T
hus in B. N
: om.
111 B: durare feudum
. N: iurare.
112 Dig. 7.1.56(63).
113 Cod. 1.2(5).23(20).
114 D
ig. 7.1.56 (63).
JO
HN
OF
AN
CO
NA
’S S
UM
MA
E 207
municipibus [m
ale municipalibus]. 115 P
reterea non est novum
nec insolitum concedi feudum
ecclesiis vel prelatis. rubrica de vasallo qui contra const. L
oth. feud. alien. c. Preterea ut liceat § E
t iterum si clericus. 116 U
nde si infeudavit ecclesiis predictis non
poterit dom
inus redarguere
vasallum
sic ecclesie
infeudantem cum
ipse dominus consueverit sim
iliter ecclesiis infeudare arg. ff. de pigno. act. l. <
Vel>
universorum117 et ff. de
usur. l. Qui sem
isses § ult. 118 Hoc forsitan posset tollerari in
regno Ierusalem, propter favorem
defensionis faciende ab eis contra Saracenos invadentes cottidie iura regni. E
t quamvis ipsi
nimium
sint potentes, tamen hoc non obstat eis ad beneficium
capescendum
arg. C. quod m
etus causa l. Ad invidiam
, 119 Et
interest regis habere subditos potentes et etiam locupletes in
aut. ut iud. sine quoquo suffrag. fiant, Cogitatio. coll. ii. 120
Hanc
autem
si velis
tenere opinionem
poteris
eam
servare quando rex
erat dom
inus feudi,
quo nem
o potentior
est in
regno, cuius interest precipue habere milites sic arm
atos ad defensionem
faciendam
contra
persecutionem
rebelium
paganorum,
et durabit
hoc ius
apud ipsos
donec servitium
debitum
exibebunt, arg. C. de fundis patrim
on. l. p<rim
a>, 121
et arg. rubrica quibus modis feudum
amit. c. i. § R
ursus. 122 Si
autem negligenter serviat (m
anuscripts: servire), cadet ecclesia a iure feudi ipso iure, rubrica in quibus casibus am
it. (an. male)
c. Ubertus de O
rto § Nec est alia iustior, 123 nam
et hoc est alias, C
. de sacro sanct. eccles. l. Iubemus nullam
. 124 Solutio: quod
negligendo vel omm
ittendo potest prelatus facere conditionem
ecclesie deteriorem, extra de prescript. c.i. 125 xvi.(xvii. m
ale) q.iii.
(ii. m
ale) Placuit 126
et diffinitur
extra de
donat. §
Fraternitatem
. 127 N
ec est
improbum
nec
contra rationem
com
munem
feudi
predicta induci
cum
multa
pro publica
115
Dig. 33.2.8.
116 L
F 2.40.3, L
ehmann 169.
117 Dig. 13.7.12.
118 Dig. 22.1.13.1.
119 Cod. 2.19(20).6.
120 A
uth. 2.2 (Nov. 8.1).
121 Cod. 11.62(61).1?
122 LF
1.5.6, Lehm
ann 91. 123
LF
2.24.6, Lehm
ann 146. 124
Cod. 1.2(5).10.
125 X 2.26.1.
126 C.16 q.3 c.15.
127 X
3.24.2.
208 JO
NA
TH
AN
RU
BIN
utilitate contra
rationem
iuris com
mun
is introducta
sunt et
servantur, ff. ad legem A
quil. l. Ita vulneratus § ult. 128 S
i autem feudum
esset alicuius domini singularis tunc
grave esset
domino
si vasallus
alienaret alicui
de predictis
quibus dominus principalis par esse non posset et ideo eius
durior esset causa arg. ff. de alien. iud. mutand. causa facta
l.iii. 129 T
he first argument to w
hich John reacts in this discussion is that grants should not be m
ade to ecclesiastical institutions, since these cannot perform
military services. A
s John puts it a few
paragraphs earlier in his text: ‘…ho
mines ecclesie, clerici vel
monachi, sunt inhabiles ad serviendum
domino seculari, puta
cum arm
is ad aliquem o
ffendendum’. 130 For John, this problem
w
as quite irrelevant with regard to the m
ilitary orders, since they w
ere not
only able
to provide
military
service but
in fact
performed it better than secular m
en. John then turns to the other difficulty w
ith grants to the church: ‘…
ecclesia sine herede non decedit et sic semper rem
haberet quod esset grave ut dom
inus re<s>
sua omni tem
pore privaretur’. 131
Here
John refers
to a
problem
which
is less
obvious: While a lord w
ho granted a fief to a secular vassal had a chance of gaining possession of it, for exam
ple, when the noble
family holding it died out, the granting of a fief to the C
hurch m
eant that no such opportunity would arise. T
his difference is not to be taken lightly, since w
e know that such occurrences
provided landlords with a m
ajor tool for reshaping their fiefs, and thus influence their future m
ilitary and economic potential. 132 In
other words, this problem
must have been a very real one for the
kingdom
’s landholders. T
he solution John provides to this issue
is based on an analogy between a fief given to a church and
usufruct held by a city. A text in the D
igest asks whether usufruct
could be granted to a municipality. In such a case, just as in a
128
Dig. 9.2.51(52).2.
129 D
ig. 4.7.3. 130 N
, fol. 266r. We know
that military service w
as owed by ecclesiastical
institutions (other than military orders). S
ee, for example, John of Ibelin, L
e L
ivre 615-616. 131
N, fol. 266r.
132 T
ibble, Monarchy and L
ordships 6-7.
JO
HN
OF
AN
CO
NA
’S S
UM
MA
E 209
grant of a fief to the Church, the danger of it becom
ing perpetual w
ould arise. This difficulty is faced, in R
oman law
, by limiting
the usufruct given to a municipality to a hundred years – a term
of tim
e equivalent to the maxim
um life expectancy of a m
an. 133 John suggests, in the sam
e manner, that fiefs w
ill be granted to the C
hurch for a period of a hundred years, citing the Codex to
argue that in such matters cities and ecclesiastical institutions are
equivalent. 134 T
he next argument used by John is that of custom
or precedence: G
rants to the Church are no novelty, he w
rites, and therefore no lord w
ill be able to convict his vassal for such a transaction. H
e adds that the development of this custom
may
have been tolerable in the kingdom because of its security needs.
John then
makes
a statem
ent w
hich seem
s som
ewhat
peculiar at first glance: The m
ilitary orders’ strength, he writes,
should not stand in the way of their obtaining benefices. T
his argum
ent is difficult to understand, since, as we saw
above, the m
ain problem
naturally
associated w
ith granting
fiefs to the
Church w
as that the Church w
as not sufficiently strong, rather than that it w
as too strong. How
, then, are we to interpret this
comm
ent? A look at the citation provided by John holds the key
to the solution of this problem. In the cited paragraph, the C
odex says that w
hen a party claims that it signed a contract as a result
of fear, the argument that the other party w
as a senator will not
suffice. 135 In other words, the pow
er of a dignitary involved in a contract does not a priori w
eaken its legitimacy. H
ow is this
relevant to our discussion?
John is
confronting a
claim
that property
is, at
least occasionally,
given to
the orders
illegitimately as a result of their extraordinary pow
er. Arguably,
this bears testimony that such an argum
ent was in fact used in
Frankish juridical discourse. 136
133
Dig. 7.1.56(63).
134 C
od. 1.2(5).23(20). 135
Cod. 2.19(20).6.
136 It
is at
least possible
that the
military
orders w
ere able
to pressure
individuals into selling property to them. O
bviously this is most probable in
cases in which the other party w
as not noble (e.g. RR
H 1209, 1236).
210 JO
NA
TH
AN
RU
BIN
The discussion then turns to the king’s interest in having
strong and even rich subjects. This strengthens the support for
granting the military orders fiefs that w
ould further enrich them.
In John’s opinion this argument is relevant, how
ever, only when
fiefs granted by the king are concerned. In this context, John also em
phasizes that such grants will be valid only as long as the
orders fulfill
their obligations.
That
means
that in
certain situations a m
ember of the C
hurch may cause dam
age to it. John justifies
this unusual,
or problem
atic, situation
by using
a paragraph in the D
igest in which w
e read that ‘multa autem
iure civili contra rationem
disputandi pro utilitate comm
uni recepta esse innum
erabilibus rebus probari potest’. 137 F
inally, John exam
ines a situation
in which
a fief
is alienated by a vassal of a ‘dom
inus singularis’. Although it is
hard to be certain what exactly is m
eant by this term, it is clear
that John refers to a landlord other than the king. 138 Such a lord,
according to John, would be in a m
ore difficult position – that is, in com
parison to the king – should one of his vassals alienate his fief to a m
ilitary order. The reference to the D
igest reveals that w
hat John had in mind w
ere difficulties in litigation vis-à-vis a person
of greater
influence. H
ow
is this
related to
this discussion? A
s we have seen, John thought that if one of the
king’s vassals alienated his fief to one of the military orders, this
would actually strengthen the king. H
e thus would have no real
reason to stop such a transaction from taking place. E
vidently, John now
turned to a situation in which a secular lord, other than
the king, loses control of a fief in the same m
anner. If a vassal of such a lord alienates his fief to one of the m
ilitary orders, this m
ay significantly weaken his position. For exam
ple, there is a chance that he w
ould have trouble enforcing his jurisdiction in his lands. Furtherm
ore, as the selling vassal may lose his place in
the C
rown’s
council as
the result
of
the transaction, 139
the seigneur’s po
litical powers w
ill also be weakened.
137
Dig. 9.2.51(51).2.
138 There is a consensus am
ong the manuscripts w
ith regard to the word
‘singularis’. 139 Praw
er, The L
atin Kingdom
268.
JO
HN
OF
AN
CO
NA
’S S
UM
MA
E 211
How
should
one view
John’s
discussion against
the background of the kingdo
m’s jurisprudence? In essence, John of
Ancona’s opinio
n can be seen as a reaction to that held by local jurists, such as John of Ibelin, w
ho wrote that if a person had
alienated his fief putting it ‘en main d’yglise ou de relegion’
without
the consent
of the
lord, the
latter had
the right
to confiscate it. 140 A
s we have seen, the Sum
ma says that if done
with the consent of the lord, alienation to the C
hurch poses no problem
whatsoever. H
aving said that, John makes an attem
pt to show
why, even w
ithout the consent of the lord, the granting of fiefs to the m
ilitary orders is permitted.
More specifically, John’s discussio
n was also m
eant to confront issues that troubled landlords and jurists in the kingdom
. W
e have
seen that
he began
his discussion
by draw
ing the
attention of his readers to the activity of the orders within the
special circumstances of the L
atin kingdom. T
hus he addressed the fear that grants to ecclesiastical institutions m
ay result in the w
eakening of the lord’s
military
strength. That this problem
troubled the rulers of the L
atin East w
ith regard to the military
orders, despite their great military pow
ers, can be seen by the case of Julian of S
idon: He alienated his lordship to the T
emplars
without
the perm
ission of
the king
(no such
figure w
as effectively ruling the kingdom
at the time). K
ing Hugh III later
decided to regularize this act, and the two reached an agreem
ent that obligated Julian to provide the king w
ith the service of knights. 141 A
nother reaction to this fear is found in a charter docum
enting the renting of the seigneurie of Arsur by B
alian d’Ibelin to the H
ospitallers. In the charter we read an obligation
to future service made by H
ugues Revel, grand m
aster of the order: 'E
t devens nos et nostre maison faire faire [sic] le servize
au tres haut et puissant mo
nsegnor Hugue…
roy dou royaume de
Jerusalem et de C
hypre…tel co
m la seignorie d’A
rsur le doit de
140
John of Ibelin, Le Livre 311. It is notew
orthy in this context that in contrast to the lords of A
rsur and Sidon, John did not sell his fiefs to the m
ilitary orders. E
dbury, John of Ibelin 99. 141
Edbury, ‘F
eudal Obligations’ 343; Philip of N
ovara, Le L
ivre de Form
e 196-197. S
ee also Edbury’s com
ments on this m
atter: Ibid. 321-322.
212 JO
NA
TH
AN
RU
BIN
chevaliers, sauf le servize que la meism
e seignorie d’Arsur doit
de cors…' 142 A
s the continuation of this phrase was absent from
the source used by D
elaville, it is hard to know w
hat exception w
as made here. In any case, it is clear that this docum
ent was
phrased in order to ensure, inter alia, that the king would not lose
the service owed to him
by the seigneurie of Arsur. Interestingly,
this agreement betw
een Balian and the H
ospitallers was lim
ited to B
alian’s lifetime. 143 It is plausible that this lim
itation was
meant to face the potentially
eternal nature of grants to the
military orders - an issue w
ith which John w
as also concerned, as w
e have seen. C
harter evidence
also reveals
that alienations
to the
military orders had the potential of being nullified by the king.
Granting lands in the vicinity of A
cre to the Hospitallers, John of
Arsur declared: 144
…se il aveneit que nous ne le peussions faire, c’est assavoir que
le seignor
del reaume
de Jerusalem
ne soffrist
en quelque
maniere que ce fust que vos eussiez les devant dites pieces de
terre, que je vos ai donées en aumosne, si com
il est desus devisé, ou que vos, par dreit de cort, les perdeissiez, je…
promet
et sui tenu de rendre et paier…les devant diz deus m
ile bezans S
arracins…
U
nder such circumstances, it is quite possible that John m
eant to provide litigators in such cases useful argum
ents in support of such transactions. In this context, it is im
portant to note that during part of his stay in the E
ast John worked for the T
emplars,
and also took care of cases of ‘quasi om
nium prelatorum
et nobilium
regni huius’, 145 which m
ay include other orders. It is
142 C
artulaire 3.61. In RR
H 1313 the docum
ent is dated to 1261, on the basis of evidence from
the Annales de Terre Sainte and the E
racles. 143 ‘…
nos…apautons et recevons…
tant com vos viverés, le chasteau et la ville
et la
seignorie d’A
rsur…’
Joseph D
elaville le
Roulx,
Les
archives, la
bibliothèque et la trésor de l’ordre de Saint-Jean de Jérusalem a M
alte (Paris
1883) 194-195. 144 C
artulaire 2.791. It should be noted that the land granted in this case is not described as a fief. 145
Brugge, fol. 1r, cited in: B
ertram, ‘Johann
es de Ancona’ 59.
JO
HN
OF
AN
CO
NA
’S S
UM
MA
E 213
likely, then, that in writing these w
ords he was also trying to
assist groups to which he w
as linked. John’s discussion o
f the grants of fiefs to m
ilitary orders must therefore be seen as a
complex text m
eant to support and justify, in terms of learned
law, a com
mon practice.
T
o conclude,
we
have seen
that John’s
feudal and
canonistic Sum
mae provide a new
perspective on Outrem
er’s juridical history. In the first place, they provide evidence for the w
ork done by a jurist coming from
the academic tradition during
his stay in the Levant. M
ore specifically, in some cases they bear
testimony to controversies or issues for w
hich we have very little
evidence from
other
sources. In others
they provide
a fresh
perspective – that of a jurist working w
ithin the learned academic
tradition – on problems w
hich were hitherto know
n almost solely
through the works of O
utremer’s custom
ary law jurists. W
e have also seen that John’s w
ork, while academ
ic, was, at least w
ith regard
to som
e issues,
strongly connected
to the
kingdom
’s juridical reality, as it is reflected in charter evidence.
Future study of these tw
o works against the background both of the
western-academ
ic texts upon which the S
umm
ae are based and of source m
aterial from the kingdom
will thus surely yield m
ore findings w
ith regard to the Kingdo
m of Jerusalem
’s juridical arena. H
ebrew U
niversity
214 JO
NA
TH
AN
RU
BIN
Ap
pen
dix
: Th
e Man
uscrip
ts of J
oh
n o
f An
con
a’s S
um
ma d
e
usib
us feu
doru
m
A
lthough various manuscripts of the Sum
ma de usibus
feudorum are enum
erated in scholarly works, no previous list
includes all of the currently known m
anuscripts of this text. 146 Furtherm
ore, while it has been noted that the m
anuscripts of the feudal Sum
ma should be divided into tw
o groups according to their incipits, 147 only som
e of the manuscripts w
ere previously connected to one group or to the other. M
ore importantly, no
attempt has been m
ade to determine w
hich group represents a text closer to John’s F
rankish original. This short appendix is
intended to fill these lacunae. L
ist of the Summ
a super usibus feudorum’s M
anuscripts A
. F
irst G
roup w
ith the
incipit: ‘T
ractaturi de
feudis prim
o videndum
est quid sit feudum’. 148
1. Bam
berg, Staatsbibl. C
an. 48, fol. 176v-186r. 13th-14
th centuries. Possibly
produced in Bologna. 149
2. Lam
bach, Stiftsbibl. chart. 221, fol. 106r-141v. 15
th century. 150 3. M
ünchen, Bayerische S
taatsbibl. Clm
24874, fol. 157r-200r. 15th century. 151
4. Nürnberg, S
tadtbibl. Cent. II 90, fol. 263r-271v. A
round 1300, northern Italy. 152
146 M
affei, Giuristi 75; S
eckel, ‘Über neuere E
ditionen’ 253-254; Bukow
ska G
orgoni, ‘F
agioli’ 168.
T
he fullest
list appears
in: G
iordanengo, ‘L
es feudistes’ 114. 147 G
iordanengo, ‘Les feudistes’ 114; S
eckel, ‘Über neuere E
ditionen’ 253-254. 148 W
here attribution of the Summ
a to an author is found in the manuscript, it
is mentioned.
149 Friedrich L
eitschuh und Hans F
ischer, Katalog der H
andschriften der K
öniglichen Bibliothek zu B
amberg (B
amberg 1887-1912, reprinted 1966)
919-922. 150
See
the H
ill M
onastic M
anuscript L
ibrary’s catalogue
in: w
ww
.hmm
l.org/research2010/catalog/detail.asp?MS
ID=
23686. [L
ast accessed: June, 2012] 151
Halm
ii C
odices L
atini M
onacenses in:
webserver.erw
in-rauner.de/halm
/vsignatur2.asp?vSignatur=
24874. [Last accessed: June, 2012]
JO
HN
OF
AN
CO
NA
’S S
UM
MA
E 215
5. Oxford, B
odleian, Canon. M
isc. 416, fol. 213v-222v. Beginning of the 14
th century. 153 6. Paris, B
NF
, lat. 4675, fol. 1r-5r. 14th century. 154
7. Paris, B
NF
, lat. 16008, fol. 65r-79v (‘Tractaturis ergo de feudis prim
o videndum
est quid sit feudum’). 14
th century. 155 8. P
arma, B
. Palatina, P
arm. 1227, fol. 75r-84r. E
nd of the 13th century, or
beginning of the 14th (‘T
ractaturi sumus de feudis. E
t primo videndum
est quid sit
feudum’). 156
As
was
already seen,
in this
manuscript
the treatise
is attributed
to Johannes
Faseolus,
although the
possibility is
raised that
Syllim
anus added to it. B
. Second G
roup with the incipit: ‘T
ractaturi de feudis sub XV
II rubricellis om
nia colligemus per ordinem
. Prim
o dicemus quid
sit feudum’.
9. Berlin, Staatsbibl. L
at. fol. 171, fol. 96r-120r. 15th century. 157 A
ttributed to M
artinus Syllim
anus. 10. B
erlin, Staatsbibl. M
agdeb. 89, fol. 123-142v. 15th century. 158
11. Leipzig, U
niversitätsbibl. 1113, fol. 3r-32v. 15th century. 159 A
ttributed to M
artinus Syllim
anus. 12. M
adrid, Escorial, e I 10, fol. 83r-100r. B
eginning of the 15th century.
Attributed to A
rmilplo[?] dela pradella (probably: A
rnaud Arpadelle). 160
152
Ingeborg N
eske, D
ie Lateinischen M
ittelaltterlichen Handschriften,
3: Juristische H
andschriften (Wiesbaden 1991) 74.
153 H
enry O
. C
oxe, C
atalogi codicum
m
anuscriptorum
bibliothecae bodleianae, pars tertia codices graecos et latinos canonicianos com
plectens (O
xford 1854) 751-752. 154 Inform
ation provided by the BN
F.
155 Information provided by the B
NF
. 156 R
egarding this manuscript, see: Jean A
cher, ‘Notes sur le droit savant au
moyen age’, N
ouvelle RH
D (1906) 125-138.
157 Giordanengo, ‘L
es feudistes’ 114. 158
The
incipit of
the text
has ‘tractatum
’ instead
of ‘tractaturi’.
This
manuscript w
as described as attributing the work to M
artinus Syllim
anus. B
ibliographie annuelle du moyen âge tardif 16 (2006) 396, nr. 2945. I have
found no such attribution in the photocopy I examined. Interestingly, to this
version of
the Sum
ma
is attached
a short
anonymous
Nota
de m
ateria feudorum
. This text is, as far as can be seen in the reproduction I used,
untitled. Ursula W
inter und Kurt H
eydeck, Die M
anuscripta Magdeburgica
der Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin P
reussischer Kulturbesitz (W
iesbaden 2004) 2.53. 159
Bukow
ska G
orgoni, ‘F
agioli’ 168
(where
the m
anuscript is
wrongly
numbered 113).
216 JO
NA
TH
AN
RU
BIN
13. Marburg, U
n. Bibl. M
scr 37 [=C
5], fol. 116r-137v. 15th century. 161
Attributed to M
artinus Syllim
anus. 14. P
aris, BN
, lat. 4773, fol. 1r-52v. 16th century. A
ttributed to Martinus
Syllim
anus. 162 15. T
rier, Stadtbibl. 1001 (1132), fol. 121r-139v. 15th century. 163 A
ttributed to a dom
inus Martinus.
The R
elationship between the T
wo G
roups
A few
examples w
ould suffice in order to show that the
text found in the manuscripts belonging to the second group is
the product of re-editing work executed on John’s Sum
ma:
Nürnberg,
Stadtbibliothek, C
ent. II 90 M
adrid, Escorial, e I 10
Item possunt dare in feudum
divites barrones
quorum
sensus et
opes m
ultum
habundant [unclear
in m
anuscript] ut
dominus
phillippus dom
inus cur [probably a corruption of T
yre] et
dominus
Johannes dom
inus T
uroni et dominus T
ibaldus de Besano
et dominus A
lmericus dom
inus Arabis
et [in]
partibus Y
talie et
dominus
Raynaldus de B
ronforte et Gentilis de
Lum
anis et <et>
alii quamplures. Item
possunt
dare nobiles
mulieres
et divites…
(263v)
Item possunt dare in feudum
divites barones
quorum
census et
opes m
ultum
habundant. Item
nobiles
mulieres et divites…
(84r) 164
Quid autem
si habiles sunt homines
Sed quid si sunt tales persone [next
160 G
iordanengo, ‘Les feudistes’ 114.
161 B
ibliographie annuelle
15 (2005)
394, nr.
3040; G
iordanengo, ‘L
es feudistes’ 114. 162 Inform
ation provided by the BN
F.
163 Gottfried K
entenich, Beschreibendes V
erzeichnis der Handschriften der
Stadtbibliothek zu Trier, 9: D
ie juristischen Handschriften (T
rier 1919) 90. I am
grateful to Prof. G
érard Giordanengo for bringing the T
rier manuscript, of
which he w
as unaware as he w
as composing his paper, to m
y notice. I would
also like to thank Prof. Eva H
averkamp (L
udwig-M
aximilians-U
niversität M
unich) for her help in obtaining a photocopy of this manuscript.
164 The readings of B
erlin 171, fol. 97v; Berlin, M
agdeb. 89, fol. 124v; L
eipzig 1113, fol. 5v; Trier 1001, fol. 122r; M
arburg, fol. 118r; Paris 4773,
fol. 4v, are essentially the same.
JO
HN
OF
AN
CO
NA
’S S
UM
MA
E 217
ecclesie ad serviendum dom
ino cum
armis
sicut sunt
hospitalarii vel
templarii vel teotonici, qui prae aliis
secularibus possunt
iuvare dom
inum
contra hostes,
maxim
e in
regno Ierusalem
, ubi
sunt ad
offendendum
ostes et
ad defensionem
terre
christianorum
potentialiter constituti?
Videtur predicta ratio…
(266r)
word unclear. B
erlin 171, fol. 103v: ecclesiastice] que abiles [sic] sunt ad serviendum
cum
arm
is ut
sunt hospitalarii et tem
plarii et similes.
Dico
quod eis
potest in
feudum
dari… (88v) 165
It can easily be seen that in both cases, the second group omits
the references to the Latin kingdom
of Jerusalem (in the first case
the references to Italy were also left out). T
wo possibilities can
now be raised: T
he first is that a scribe or editor working in the
West saw
no sense in making an effort to copy inform
ation that concerned the K
ingdom of Jerusalem
and omitted it. T
he second is that the m
anuscripts of the second group represent an original, w
hich had no relation at all to the kingdom, and w
as later re-edited by John in order to suit his interest in O
utremer’s juridical
system. T
he second suggestion can, however, easily be ruled out,
since the kingdom is not w
holly absent from the m
anuscripts of the second group. 166 C
onsequently, one can be certain that the first group represents a text closer to the original.
165 T
he readings of Berlin 171, fol. 103v; L
eipzig 1113, fol. 13r; Trier 1001,
fol. 127r; Marburg 37, fol. 123v; P
aris 4773, fol. 18v; Berlin M
agdeb. 89, fol. 129v, are essentially the sam
e. 166 M
adrid e I 10, fol. 99r, 99v.
218 JO
NA
TH
AN
RU
BIN
Another exam
ple will serve to support this argum
ent:
Nürnberg,
Stadtbibliothek,
Cent. II 90
Madrid, E
scorial, e I 10
Et
ideo puto
errare advocatos
cismarinos qui ad declinandum
forum
ecclesie allegant
milites
possessores esse
feudatarios et
rem
habere in
feudum
a rege
[coram]
quo paratos
offerunt se respondere… (271r)
Errant
enim
qui forum
ecclesie
declinant tenentes ea que sunt Regis
Iherusalem
coram
quo non
se paratos o fferunt respondere…
(99r)
On the left, presented is a part of the discussion studied above
concerning ecclesiastical jurisdiction. On the right is the parallel
text from the M
adrid manuscript. 167 O
bviously, the scribe/editor of the second redaction did not understand John’s discussio
n and confused the text. S
upported by the fact that the manuscripts of
the first group are generally earlier than those of the second, the evidence presented m
akes it clear that the text transmitted by the
first group is closer to John’s original treatise than that w
hich appears in the m
anuscripts of the second. 167 B
erlin 171, fol. 118r gives a different reading, which does not alter m
y conclusion: ‘E
rrant enim quod forum
ecclesie declinant eo quod sunt vasalli regis Ihersalem
coram quo non se paratos offerunt respondere’. L
eipzig 1113, fol. 30r: ‘E
rrant enim qui forum
ecclesie declinant eo quod sunt vasalli regis Iherusalem
coram quo se non paratos offerunt respondere’. P
aris 4773, fol. 49r and B
erlin Magdeb. 89, fol. 141r present very sim
ilar readings. Marburg
37, fol. 136r: ‘Errant enim
qui forum ecclesie declinant eo quot [sic] sunt
vasalli regis Ierusalem coram
quo non paratos offerunt se r[?]dere [last word
unclear]’.