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]’.