[Bishop, etc.]
[Signature: A iij]

Handwritten note in cursive:? that in this narrative original: "narracione" everything as stated above regarding the example of the wife...

a What if a vassal has spoken basely and dishonestly with the wife of his lord, or has touched her person: should he be deprived of his fiefA fief (feudum) was land held by a vassal from a lord in exchange for military service and loyalty.?

Alexander says no, because speech is not as shameful as touch, as shown here in the same section.

Accordance with chapter 2 in gloss 2, "outside of fiefs."

Accordance with this paragraph, as said in chapter 2, in the gloss on the word,

Albericus the Provost. The place itself makes the act lawful.

e In the law "omnimodo" regarding witnesses, and in the Code "on the revocation of gifts," law 1. In the Digest "on proofs," law "From the eyes." Accursius Accursius (c. 1182–1263) was a famous Italian jurist who compiled the "Great Gloss," the standard commentary on Roman Law..

f He seeks out. This is because in crimes, the will original: "voluntas" is inspected rather than the actual outcome. As in the Digest, on the Cornelian law regarding assassins, law "Divine." And I understand this is why he desisted due to repentance, as in the Digest on the Cornelian law regarding forgers, law "that."

Truly, if he desisted because of impossibility, his intent is to be punished, as noted in the distinction... when anyone has the will to commit a crime, etc.

b Played. Perhaps by placing his hand on her breast: or even more shamefully dallied with the lady, as in the Lombard laws... for play, or harmful play, is a fault: as in the Digest, Lex Aquilia, law "for play." For who would call those things "play" from which crimes arise? As in the constitution of the Emperor Frederick, at the end of the constitution.

c Had intercourse. Certain people say here in the text, immediately after these words, "these things hold true if he remains in the lord's house": others do not have this: but we believe those words to be added.

d Is deemed to be admitted. But is this corrected today, so that it cannot be taken away without a certain and convicted fault? Response: by no means. For that which is not specifically removed [remains], as in the Code "on testaments," law "it is sanctioned." For whatever is not found expressly forbidden by law is understood to be left to the constitutions of the ancients, as in the Code "on appeals," law "we command," at the end. It seems, however, that the contrary can be said, as in the Lombard laws...

...practiced ^a, or has shamefully dallied ^b with her, or if he has had intercourse ^c with the lord's daughter, or with his granddaughter from a son, or with the son's wife, or with the lord's sister (this holds true if she remains in the lord's house), he would be judged by law to lose his fief ^d. Similarly, if he has assaulted the lord, or the lord's castle, knowing ^e the lord or lady to be there ^f. Likewise, if he has killed his brother ^g, or a nephew (that is, a brother's son). Or if ^h he has given more than half [the land] into a fief under the name of a libellusA "libellus" was a type of long-term lease or contract often used to alienate land without transferring full ownership.: or has pledged more than half as security ⁱ, such that he allows it to be transferred: or has done this through deceit: he shall be punished by the loss of the fief. ^h In all these cases, the fief reverts to the lord. ⁱ Again, if the faithful [vassal] has given less than half the fief under the name of a libellus, and has died without an heir, and the fief has returned to the lord, either after he gave it to the libellus ^l or pledged it as security, and restored it to the lord: then he who received it from him shall have no right to defend himself against the lord.

h Shall be punished. Shall he be deprived of the whole by reason of the alienated part? Response: indeed, in that which he failed, as in the case of a vassal who acted against the constitution of Lothair... today he cannot alienate any part without the lord's—

i Reverts. After this word "reverts" and before "again," I found such a gloss: this is derogated in our time in the court of Milan.

k To the lord. Here can be noted what we noted in Title 1... But it is asked, whether this second vassal can try a case against the heir of the first, when he has died without an heir in the fief, but with an heir in other goods? Response: this is a question of fact rather than law: and can be determined according to what is read in "on investiture of another's property." But is the right of acceptance resolved in the same way if the lord—that is, the first vassal—loses the fief through his own fault? Response: certainly. For if it happens because of enmities, or in another way because of his fault, he himself shall be held liable, as argued in the Digest "on the dissolution of marriage" and "on hiring and conducting"...

d This gloss at the end follows Baldus Baldus de Ubaldis (1327–1400) was a student of Bartolus and a leading figure in medieval law. and Albericus here.

...will. As in the section on the alienation of fiefs by the imperial law of Frederick. Whatever is stated here.

l To the libellus. Otherwise "to the libellus" or "by name of libellus." Accursius.

m Recourse. But never—

...to find, to whom according to right custom it does not belong: he has no way to have recourse ^m to reclaim it. Likewise, if there were two brothers, and one received the investitureInvestiture was the formal ceremony of transferring a fief to a vassal. of a fief: if afterward he divided the fief with his brother, and he who received the part of the fief afterward sold more than half, and died without a legitimate heir, the fief reverts to the lord ⁿ. Likewise, if someone held a fief in the court of his lord: he cannot give that fief or any part of it to anyone under the name of a libellus without the consent of his lord, or pledge it as security. Similarly, if he held it outside the court ^o, and the lord had jurisdiction or other honor: if he alienated it without [the lord's] will, it reverts by law to the lord.

TITLE VI.

THAT A BISHOP, OR ABBOT, or Abbess, or lord of the people cannot grant a fief.

The lord of the people cannot henceforth enfeoff the property of the churches subject to them which are called titles. Baldus.

The historiated woodcut initial 'E' contains a figure of a tonsured cleric or bishop seated behind a desk or lectern, representing a teacher or a legal authority presiding over the law.

Furthermore, if a bishop, or abbot, or abbess, or lord $^*$ of the people has given a fief from the property of the churches,

$^*$ He who consents loses his own rights and strengthens those of another.

Moreover ^k if the sons, to whom the fief ought to come by right of succession, have consented to them...

...sometimes the provost. For as it says, that is, tacitly here... and in the Digest... on judges... and on the jurisdiction of all judges... by error... in the chapters on feudal controversies... vassal. Item: consent is understood here for one who is present and does not contradict, as argued in the Digest on decurions... and the Code on the sons of families... in the summary of the church. However, it should be noted here that he who consents to another loses his own rights, as in the Code on the administration of tutors. Accursius on diffusion.

n Reverts. I understand this when they received the fief in common: and it was specifically said that one would succeed the other. For otherwise there would be no doubt. And such a prohibition would work nothing... because otherwise a brother would not succeed a brother in a fief... But you will insist? Since if the vassal does not commit a crime against the lord, the fief reverts to the nearest blood relative and not to the lord... there it is also understood to be a crime against the lord: since he seems to be held in contempt, as shown there. Thus the crime or act of one seems to be a hindrance to the other. But this will be noted more fully below in "what was the first cause of losing a benefit." Accursius.

o Court. Namely, what is commonly called "of the cellar" original: "de cauena". So therefore, according to these laws, the vassal holds a fief in his lord's court in one way, and outside it in another. And if outside: either the lord has jurisdiction original: "districtum", that is, legal authority, or not. In the first two cases, he cannot give any part under the name of a libellus without the lord's will: but—

Approved by Baldus the Provost. He explains here...

...how do you understand this "in whatever way they consent," that is, whether tacitly or expressly? Response: certainly, as argued in the Code on the release of pledges... and in the Digest on the rules of law... "the creditor," at the end. Unless while he tacitly consents, he understands his right to endure everywhere... Item: I understand this when he consented from a certain opinion: for otherwise he is understood to err rather than to consent, as in the Digest on judges... and on the jurisdiction of all judges... "if by error." ...vassal. Item: consent is understood here for one who is present and does not contradict, as argued in the Digest on decurions... at the end... and in the Code on the sons of families... in the summary. However, it should be noted here that he who consents to another loses his own rights, as in the Code on the administration of tutors. Accursius.

g Killed his brother. Here it is asked to whom this "his" refers: to the lord or the vassal? Response: it can be referred to either: not, however, without distinction, for even if the vassal kills the lord's brother, he does not therefore lose the fief. But I understand this unless he did it in betraying him. For then he would be a stranger and deprived of the fief: much more strongly therefore if he killed the lord's brother in this way. And in this case the fief reverts to the lord, if the vassal kills his own brother for this purpose, perhaps, so that he might have the whole inheritance, or committed a similar felony: for example, by killing a man so that he can no longer stand in court, he loses the fief. But if he did not commit a crime against the lord, to the next—