Countess of Devon; and this seems to bring down its date to 1262, for in that year the last of these Baldwins died, and the inheritance passed to Isabella, who had married William de Forz, Count of Aumâle.1 Then at the very end of the work we find a writ in which King Henry calls himself Duke of Aquitaine, but does not call himself Duke of Normandy or Count of Anjou. This writ must have been issued between Henry's resignation of the Norman duchy in 1259 and his death in 1272. Also it is a writ founded either upon one of the Provisions of Westminster (1259) or upon a clause in the Statute of Marlborough (1267) which reenacted that provision; I think that it is founded upon the former. On the other hand, unless this be a trace of the Statute of Marlborough, I see no other trace of that comprehensive Statute. I see no mention of Edward I., and no allusion to any of the many Statutes of his reign. Almost immediately after the end of the Glanvill there come-and there is no transition from one quire to another articles for an eyre of the 40th year of Henry III. (1265-6), and then we have the passage which tells of Lewes and Evesham, and of what Robert Carpenter did in 1265. On the whole, I am inclined to suppose that the Glanvill was written within a short space on one side or the other of 1265, though it contains more writs of trespass than I should have expected to find at that date.2 The man who wrote it I mean the scribe from whose pen we get this manuscript of Glanvill-must have lived on into Edward I.'s reign. As already said, he copied a Register of that reign, and he copied various Statutes. I think that he copied the Circumspecte Agatis, which is ascribed to 1285. The Second Statute of Westminster (1285) is in the book, but was written by another hand.

[ocr errors]

If the revised Glanvill belongs, and I think that in its present shape it does belong, to the last years of Henry III., then it is somewhat younger than Bracton's work, and we may be not a little surprised that at so late a time some one attempted to refurbish the old text-book and bring it "up to date;" for in the interval there had been great changes in the law, and many new actions had been invented. We cannot say that success crowned the endeavor. The reviser seems to have started upon his task with the intention of explaining difficulties, correcting statements

1 Annales Monastici, i. 499; Calendarium Genealogicum, i. 106.

2 Harvard Law Review, iii. 177.

which had become antiquated, and inserting new writs and new rules at appropriate places. But ultimately he discovered that the work was beyond his powers, or perhaps he grew weary of it. He divides his text into "treatises" (tractatus). The following scheme will show how his "treatises" correspond to the "books" and "chapters," which we see in the printed volumes:

I. Tractatus de baroniis et placito terre = lib. i., ii., iii.

2. Tractatus de aduocationibus ecclesiarum lib. iv.

3. Tractatus de questione status = lib. v.

4. Tractatus de dotibus mulierum, unde ipse mulieres nichil perceperunt et cum partem aliquam perceperunt lib. vi., vii.

= =

5. Tractatus de querela et fine facto in curia domini Regis et non observato lib. viii.


6. Tractatus de homagiis faciendis et releuiis recipiendis lib. ix. cap. 1-10.

[ocr errors]

7. Tractatus de purpresturis lib. ix. cap. 11-14.

8. Tractatus de debitis laycorum que solummodo super proprietate rei prodita erunt lib. x. cap. 1-13. 9. Tractatus de cap. 14-18.

placitis que super possessionibus loquuntur lib. x.


At the end of what is the tenth book of our printed Glanvill, he begins a new, a tenth "treatise," "De placitis que per recognitiones terminantur," and he follows Glanvill down to a point which is in the middle of the third chapter of the eleventh book of our textus receptus. He has still to deal with part of the eleventh book, and then with the three remaining books. For a moment we think that he is going to follow Glanvill in his treatment of the possessory assizes. These possessory assizes are the subjectmatter of Glanvill's thirteenth book. But from this point onwards the work degenerates into a mere Register of Writs, though among the writs a few explanatory notes will now and again be found. The compiler deals first with the possessory assizes, but then gives us writs of all sorts and kinds, many of which have been already dealt with in the previous "treatises." I hear him saying to himself, “ After all, it is a hopeless job, this attempt to edit the old text-book. Glanvill, or whoever its author may have been, was a great man in his day, but his day is over, and we cannot bring it back. Let us at all events have a really useful list of those writs which are current in our own time." This, however, does not prevent him from writing at the end of his register, "Here endeth the Summa which is called Glanvill."

I shall best be able to convey an idea of his work by giving the most remarkable passages which he adds to our textus receptus of Glanvill, and some of those passages in which he qualifies or corrects that text. But he is always qualifying or correcting it about little matters. For example, he glosses some very simple words; thus, "proceres, id est, barones," "equidem, id est, certe," "natiuitate, id est, nauitate." This last gloss shows that he is more familiar with French than with Latin. We see the growth of a technical language when Glanvill's essoin "de infirmitate reseantise," becomes "de malo lecti," and even "mall de lith," which is to be contrasted with "mall de venue." And so he corrects his author by writing "defendens, id est, tenens." Then by a marginal note he sometimes stigmatizes a passage as "Lex Antiqua," or "Jus Antiquum," and is fond of speaking of what is done "moderno tempore." Sometimes he marks the interpolations by the word "Addicio," or the word "Extra;" but he is not very careful in this matter. He (I am speaking as though the scribe of our MS. was also the man who made the changes in Glanvill's text) was not much of a Latinist, and I doubt whether he was a great lawyer. At any rate, he succeeds in obscuring some matters which are clear enough in our printed book.

I hope that the passages printed below will speak for themselves to any reader who has the textus receptus at hand. A collection of variants cannot be lively reading, but it still may be a useful thing. I have only noticed the considerable changes, for, as already said, the reviser is constantly making minor alterations, some of which are called for by the evolution of the various courts, while others seem almost gratuitous substitutions of a modern word for one which is going out of fashion. For three passages I will ask attention. The reviser says twice over that the recognitors of the grand assize are not to use in their oath a certain word which is used by other jurors. That word he seems to write as amuncient. This I take to be a mun cient or a mun scient, and to mean to the best of my knowledge. Before now in these pages I have drawn attention to a similar remark in a Registrum Brevium, the phrase there I took to be a son scient. In the grand assize you must swear positively that A or that B has the greater right. You must not talk about the best of your knowledge or anything of the kind.

1 Harvard Law Review, iii. 111.

In a curious passage about divorce, our writer speaks of divorce for blasphemy, and refers to the opinion of one whom he calls aug' mag'. The reference is, I believe, to a passage from Augustine (Augustinus Magnus) which is contained in the Decretum Gratiani. The canonists held "quod contumelia Creatoris soluit ius matrimonii." Lastly, we have a remarkable statement to the effect that of old the goods of bastards who died intestate belonged to their lords, but that nowadays they belong to our lord the king by the grant of our lord the pope. But without further preface I must produce my collection of variants.

[ocr errors]


Nov., 1891.




i. 5. Cum quis conqueritur domino Regi vel eius iustic[iariis] vel cancellariis 2 super iniusta detencione de aliquo libero tenemento si fuerit loquela talis

i. 7. quindecim dierum ad minus, ut liber homo habebit respectum quindecim dierum et baro tres ebdomadas et comes unum


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

i. 8. At the end comes the following passage which is noted in the margin as an "Addicio❞— Item moderno tempore si quis summonitus fuerit ad respondendum de terra et implacitatus fuerit per breve de recto vel de ingressu vel per breve quod dicitur precipe," et placitum illud fuerit coram iusticiariis, et primo die summonitus non venerit, capietur terra in manu domini Regis, et ad comitatum si placitum fuerit et primo die non venerit, ponetur per vadium et plegios ad respondendum de defalta et capitali placito ad secundum comitatum si placitetur de recto, et si ad secundum comitatum non venerit ipse qui implacitatur, capietur terra in manu domini Regis, et si per quindecim dies non replegiata ipsa terra in manu domini Regis fuerit, perdet tenens seisi

1 c. 7, X. 4. 19; see the passage from Augustine in C. 28, qu. 1.

2 Here and elsewhere a notice of the Chancery as the place where writs are ob tained is interpolated.

• I do not remember to have seen this rule elsewhere.

• The procedure seems to have been made a little less dilatory than it was.

nam. Et replegiari debet tenementum illud de illo per quem in manu domini Regis capta fuerit ut de iusticiariis vel comitatu per breue domini Regis illis directo. Et sciendum quod postquam tenementum aliquod captum fuerit in manu domini Regis non potest tenens se essoniare nec defaltam facere nisi perdat tenementum illud per defaltam.

i. 12.

... vel plegios inueniet, scilicet, secundum antiquum statutum aut fidem dabit.1

i. 13.

. iusticiariis nostris de banco 2...

i. 18. This is preceded by a classification of essoins in a tabular form and the following remark - Nulla mulier debet in aliquo placito essoniari de seruicio domini Regis, quia non possunt nec debent nec solent esse in seruicio domini Regis in exercitu nec in aliis seruiciis regalibus.

i. 30. Omit Huiusmodi enim publicus actus dies similiter adiudicabitur utilis.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]


i. 31. . . . . et in nouis disseisinis, de ultima presentacione et in aliis consimilibus 3.

corpus enim capietur vel attachietur de consilio iusticiariorum ut festinancius puniatur ille absens rettatus de pace domini Regis infrincta propter curie contemptum.

i. 32. In the margin over against the last sentences describing the imprisonment of a defaulting appellor stands - Jus antiquum.

ii. 3. The count is more elaborate: the demandant traces his pedigree step by step. The word "defendens " is glossed by "tenens." The fine for recreancy is 40, not 60 shillings—this, I think, is a mistake. The punishment imminebit super campionem victum vel super dominum suum si eum sursum caperet. This I understand to mean that the punishment for recreancy falls on the champion himself unless his hirer raises him from the field. By coming to the aid of the craven whom one has hired one exposes oneself to the recreancy fine.

ii. 7. In the famous description of the institution of the grand assize read regalis ista constitucio instead of legalis ista institucio: -an interesting variant.

Add at the end of this chapter Et statim accedat tenens in

1 It is enough nowadays that the essoiner should pledge his faith without finding a more material pledge.

[ocr errors]

2 Here and elsewhere notices of "the Bench are interpolated.

8 Actions are being classified for the purpose of rules about essoins.

« ForrigeFortsett »