^{page 61 note 1} English Historical Review 59 (1944) 44.Google Scholar

^{page 61 note 2} Descriptive Catalogue of Manuscripts in Gonville and Caius College (Cambridge 1907) I, 82–4. Some corrections are necessary, as may be seen from the notes that follow.Google Scholar

^{page 61 note 3} Caius College MS 85, fol.93. A petition (presumably a draft) to the pope on his behalf, praying for dispensation, describes him as master W. de H. ‘in ecclesia Londoniensi (sic), qui de nobilibus est ortus, quamquam de soluto et soluta genitus, tam in artibus quam in decretis laudabiliter rexit Parisius.’ I cannot, however, find that Walter de la Haye held any office at St. Paul's or any benefice in the diocese of London.Google Scholar

^{page 61 note 4} Ibid. flyleaf 2r. The beginning and ending of the poem have been printed (not quite correctly) by James, M. R., loc. cit. A full transcript was printed by Maitland in the English Historical Review in April 1896: reprinted in Collected Papers (Cambridge 1911) III, 43–49. Maitland also drew attention to Walter's jottings.Google Scholar

^{page 61 note 5} A bond (fol.88v) provides for a first payment at Easter 56 Henry III. A letter to Stephen, bishop of Chichester (fol.86v), is dated Monday after Easter 1274. A letter from this bishop (fol.94v) lacks the year, which must, however, lie between 1262 and 1287. It does not seem possible to date the other annotations in the same hand. Two incomplete notes, jotted on the flyleaves, relating to legal proceedings in which Walter de la Haye takes part, do not appear to be in the hand which I have assumed, from the frequency of its occurrence, to be his.Google Scholar

^{page 61 note 6} Her name is spelled ‘Adeluuya la Sauage’ at fol.86v. The bond at fol.88v describes her as ‘domina A. Salvage, quondam uxor R. Salvage': this serves to identify her with ‘Aldeluya’ or ‘Audeluya’ of Cal[endar] of Inquisitions Post Mortem (Rolls Series) II, 77, 107. Her husband is acting as proctor for some English prelates.⁷ Master Walter may not have been the first possessor of the book, but I have detected no marks of an earlier owner, and it cannot have been Bracton's, for the dates 1262 and 1267, ascribed to some imaginary documents in the Summa aurea,⁸ put the writing, at earliest, in the closing days of Bracton's lifetime and perhaps outside it. Nor is the Caius College manuscript a copy of one Bracton had before him. I venture to be positive on this point because we now know, thanks to Dr. Fritz Schulz, that Bracton had used a text of Tancred's Ordo that was very like the text edited by Friedrich Bergmann⁹ and consequently one that differed in many of its readings from the text contained in the Caius College manuscript. The extent to which the texts may sometimes diverge can be illustrated by placing in juxtaposition a brief passage, where Bracton clung closely to Tancred, and the corresponding passages in the Ordo, first as Bergmann prints it and then as the manuscript gives it. presumably to be identified with the sheriff of Surrey and Sussex, 1246–49. The bond in question was given by master Walter, to whom dame Adelwy had lent five marks.Google Scholar

^{page 62 note 7} Cal. of Papal Registers (Rolls Series) I, 454. Though his name is here given as William, this is likely, as Maitland surmised, to be a mistake for Walter, since the other particulars seem to fit. He is an acolyte of the diocese of London and of illegitimate birth, being the son of a clerk in minor orders. He is termed ‘master’ and is plainly a canonist. It may be noted that wherever a description is added to his name in Caius College MS 85, it is clericus: flyleaf 2v and fol.78v, 88v, 92v, 94v .Google Scholar

^{page 62 note 8} Maitland, , Collected Papers, III, 43; Wahrmund, L., Quellen zur Geschichte des römisch-kanonischen Processes im Mittelalter, Band 2, Heft 2 (Innsbruck 1914) xvii n. 4.Google Scholar

^{page 62 note 9} Schulz, F., ‘Critical Studies in Bracton’s Treatise,’ Law Quarterly Review 59 (1943) 172–80; ‘A new approach to Bracton,’ Seminar 2 (1944) 41–50. Bergmann’s edition of Tancred’s Ordo was published at Göttingen in 1842, in a volume entitled Pillii, Tancredi, Gratiae Libri de Iudiciorum Ordine. Google Scholar

^{page 62 note 10} It will be noticed that this text differs at the outset from Bergmann’s text (p. 89), which reads: ‘Assiduis postulationibus me, carissimi socii, iamdudum inducere studuistis …,’ nor is a reading like that of the Caius College manuscript to be found in Bergmann’s apparatus.Google Scholar

^{page 63 note 11} As I trust I have demonstrated: see English Historical Review 59 (1944) 22–47.Google Scholar

^{page 63 note 12} The evidence for a certain contemporary popularity for the Summa aurea is set out in English Historical Review 59 (1944) 38.Google Scholar

^{page 64 note 13} I may refer to what I have myself written (ibid. 24–5) and to Dr. Schulz’s description, ‘a web artificially woven with threads of various kinds and various provenance’ (ibid. 60 [1945] 175).Google Scholar

^{page 64 note 14} Ibid. 59 (1944) 39.Google Scholar

^{page 65 note 1} About 600 words separate this sentence from the next paragraph here reproduced.Google Scholar

^{page 65 note 2} MS ‘autoris.’ ³ MS ‘defendum.’ ⁴ Corrected from ‘perfecto.’ Google Scholar

^{page 65 note 5} The meaning of these three words and what follows them will be plain if reference is made to the Ordo. Passages beginning ‘Desideriis autem vestris …’ and ‘Invocato …’ are found in the proem, while the first book begins with the words ‘Iudiciorum siquidem ordo …’ (Bergmann 89–90: his text reads, however, ‘Desideriis itaque vestris …’).Google Scholar

^{page 66 note 1} Law Quarterly Review 59 (1943) 172–80.Google Scholar

^{page 66 note 2} Seminar 2 (1944) 43–50.Google Scholar

^{page 66 note 3} Ibid. 45 n. 11. The borrowing, in fact, begins at fol.33b, where ‘Et sciendum quod cartarum alia regia alia privatorum’ corresponds to Tancred’s ‘Instrumentorum due sunt species: aliud est publicum. aliud est privatum’ (Lib.iii, tit. 13, §2).Google Scholar

^{page 66 note 4} Dr. Schulz has been good enough to draw my attention to the addicio at fol.183b (ed. Woodbine III, 68) which reproduces a passage in Lib.ii, tit. 10, of Tancred (ed. Bergmann, 167).Google Scholar

^{page 66 note 5} Cf. Bracton and Azo xxix, 63, 199.Google Scholar

^{page 66 note 6} It is possible that there is another instance at fo.183b, where Bracton writes: ‘Et ideo videndum est de officio iustitiarii. Officium autem eius est diligenter causam examinare …’ Cf. Tancred, lib.i, tit.1, §3: ‘Officium cuiuslibet iudicis latissimum est. Debet enim omnia quae ad causam pertinent diligenter inquirere …’ Google Scholar

^{page 66 note 7} Here and elsewhere the texts follow Bergmann’s edition of Tancred and Woodbine’s edition of Bracton.Google Scholar

^{page 66 note 8} And from Azo, if Bracton had him in mind at all: see Maitland’s comment, Bracton and Azo 199. On Bracton’s sources for fol.107, see the parallels adduced by Schulz, Dr., English Historical Review 60 (1945) 137–43. I venture to suggest, later, some qualifications. The rest of fol.108, which contains nothing similar to Tancred’s text, has been omitted.Google Scholar

^{page 68 note 10} The passage omitted here is printed and discussed below.Google Scholar

^{page 68 note 11} Bracton and Azo 197.Google Scholar

^{page 68 note 12} Bracton may himself be the author: but the qualifications and disqualifications of judges were of importance to Italian legists and I suspect a borrowing from some Summa or Ordo judiciarius. Moralising on judges is both an ancient and frequent feature of medieval legal literature. There is a brief tract in Old English, based upon Isidore, written probably early in the eleventh century and appearing, in a Latin version, in the Quadripartitus (Liebermann, , Gesetze der Angelsachsen [Halle 1903–16] I, 474–6; III, 268). Bracton, however, does not seem to be indebted to this.Google Scholar

^{page 68 note 13} Here, and below, the text is that of Friedberg’s edition. The rest of fol.108, which contains nothing similar to Tancred’s text, has been omitted.Google Scholar

^{page 69 note 14} After ‘mutare’ Tancred cites Dig. 42.1.55, and after ‘similibus‘ Dig. 42.1.42. Google Scholar

^{page 69 note 15} Tancred's words are, in fact, lifted straight from the Digest: ‘quia iurisdictio sine modica coercitione nulla est’ (Dig. 1.21.5 §1). Google Scholar

^{page 69 note 16} The words that he actually took from X.1.29.28 are found also in X.1.29.29, but it will, I think, be agreed that the borrowing was in the order I suggest. Google Scholar

^{page 69 note 17} Sic. Bracton's copy of Tancred may have given this form. Google Scholar

^{page 70 note 18} See the parallel texts printed by Dr. Schulz and his commentary, Law Quarterly Review 59 (1943) 172–8.Google Scholar

^{page 70 note 19} Cf. Schulz, F., ‘A new approach to Bracton,’ Seminar 2 (1944) 43–5, 48: see also the passages parallel to Bracton fol.107, cited by Dr. Schulz in English Historical Review 60 (1945) 137–43.Google Scholar

^{page 70 note 20} Besides the present instances of Bracton’s incorporation of passages from decretals, see the instance cited ibid. 59 (1944) 380.Google Scholar

^{page 70 note 20a} Following Glanville, lib.i, c.2 and xiv, c.1.Google Scholar

^{page 71 note 21} Inst.4.18.2: ‘Publicorum iudiciorum quaedam capitalia sunt, quaedam non capitalia. Capitalia dicimus quae ultimo supplicio adficiunt …’ It is just possible that Bracton was led to this paragraph by a reference of Tancred’s to the chapter in which it is found: but Bracton’s own familiarity with the Institutes cannot be doubted.Google Scholar

^{page 71 note 22} A sentence is omitted here.Google Scholar

^{page 71 note 23} Most of this sentence is from Glanville lib.xiv, .1 (ed. Woodbine, p. 176.)Google Scholar

^{page 72 note 24} Bracton and Azo xx.Google Scholar

^{page 73 note 1} The form ‘conventionalis libellus’ is already found in the Authenticum (Nov. 112.2). For the usage of civilians and canonists see Richardson, and Sayles, , Select Cases of Procedure Writ (Selden Society 1941) lxi, where a number of citations will be found.Google Scholar

^{page 73 note 2} Summa aurea (Wahrmund) pp. 196–259.Google Scholar

^{page 73 note 3} Lib.ii, tit.9, §13 (Bergmann, 164–5, 169–70).Google Scholar

^{page 73 note 4} Hollond, H. A. in Cambridge Law Journal 8 (1944) 256–7.Google Scholar

^{page 74 note 5} Summa aurea 239: ‘Sed ne aliqui possint argui de ignorantia, ideo inserui predictos libellos, et habent locum tota die in curia regia …’ Google Scholar

^{page 74 note 6} For the text of these passages and variant readings, see Woodbine’s edition, II, 317. Professor Woodbine, however, adopts the reading ‘sine brevi et libello conventionali’ in the first passage: but this seems impossible to sustain.Google Scholar

^{page 75 note 7} Richardson, and Sayles, , Select Cases of Procedure without Writ lxxi–cvii.Google Scholar

^{page 75 note 1} Felix Liebermann has discussed these recensions in two monographs, Über die Leges Anglorum saeculo xiii. ineunte Londoniis collectae (Halle 1894) and Über die Leges Edwardi Confessoris (Halle 1896). The text he edited in Gesetze der Angelsachsen I, 627–672: for introduction, notes and additional manuscript readings, see ibid. III, 339–350. Liebermann's final opinion on the date of the third recension is not clear, but he dated the oldest (not the original) manuscript c 1205 (ibid. 340). He did not remark that the reviser made use of the official account of Richard I’s coronation.Google Scholar

^{page 75 note 2} The evidence on this point will be discussed in Speculum 24 (1949).Google Scholar

^{page 75 note 3} Liebermann, , Gesetze I, 635–7. Under Liebermann’s system of notation the paragraphs of this section are distinguished as E.Cf.retr. 11, 1A, to 11, 1B8: I have employed this notation below.Google Scholar

^{page 75 note 4} This has not been transmitted in its original text but is known from the ‘Gesta Regis Ricardi’ in the Chronicle of the Reigns of Henry II and Richard I, falsely attributed to Benedict of Peterborough (ed. Stubbs, , Rolls Series 1867) II, 78–83, and from the Chronica Rogeri de Hoveden (ed. Stubbs, , Rolls Series 1868–71) III, 8–12. The versions differ slightly and the text the reviser had before him was nearer Howden’s.Google Scholar

^{page 76 note 5} The parallel texts are conveniently set out in Dr. Schulz’s article mentioned below.Google Scholar

^{page 76 note 6} Bracton’s discussion is at fol.107–107b (ed. Woodbine, II, 304–306).Google Scholar

^{page 76 note 7} ‘Bracton on Kingship,’ English Historical Review 60 (1945) 137–143. Dr. Schulz has suggested that Bracton went farther afield for some of his borrowings, but I doubt whether it is necessary to suppose this.Google Scholar

^{page 76 note 8} E.Cf.retr. 11, 1A.Google Scholar

^{page 76 note 9} E.Cf.retr. 11, 1A6.Google Scholar

^{page 76 note 10} E.Cf.retr. 11, 1A8.Google Scholar

^{page 77 note 11} Elsewhere when adapting Glanville’s prologue Bracton (fol.1) changes procerum to magnatum. Indeed he seems here to have again in mind Glanville’s words ‘procerum quidem consilio et principis accedente auctoritate’ (Glanvill, , De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Regni Angliae [ed. Woodbine, , Yale University Press 1932] 24).Google Scholar

^{page 77 note 12} E.Cf.retr. 11, 1B3.Google Scholar

^{page 77 note 13} E.Cf.retr. 11, 1B7.Google Scholar

^{page 77 note 14} See Maitland’s notes in Bracton and Azo 11–17, and, for Drogheda, , English Historical Review 59 (1944) 22–47. For Tancred see the first section of the present paper.Google Scholar

^{page 77 note 15} They have been indicated by Liebermann, , Leges Edwardi Confessoris 122.Google Scholar

^{page 77 note 16} Bracton fol.124b (Woodbine II, 351); E.Cf.retr. 21; 21, 1; 23; 23, 1.Google Scholar

^{page 77 note 17} Bracton fol.134b (Woodbine, II, 379); E.Cf.retr. 16; 16, 1; 15, 2–5.Google Scholar

^{page 77 note 18} Bracton fol.125b (Woodbine, II, 354); E.Cf.retr. 6, 2a .Google Scholar

^{page 78 note 19} E.Cf.retr. 23; 23, 1. I assume that Bracton’s exemplar spelt the last word ‘hyne’; it is variously spelt in the existing manuscripts: ‘agen hyne’ means ‘a member of his household,’ de propria familia. Google Scholar

^{page 78 note 20} The variants are recorded by Woodbine II, 351.Google Scholar

^{page 78 note 21} The earliest manuscript of the third recension (Rylands MS 174) leaves much to be desired: see English Historical Review 28 (1913) 738.Google Scholar

^{page 78 note 22} Bracton fol.92–92b ; Raymond, , Summa de matrimonio tit.25: see English Historical Review 59 (1944) 382. Unless copyists have wronged him, parapharna is Bracton’s rendering of Raymond’s paraferna or parapherna: but the misspelling may have been in the manuscript Bracton consulted. In treating the word as an adjective, he is following his authority.Google Scholar

^{page 79 note 1} Cam, H. M., Studies in the Hundred Rolls (Oxford Studies in Social and Legal History 6, Oxford 1921) 23, 89. Miss Cam does not state that the two versions emanate from one group of justices, but, as we shall see, this must be so.Google Scholar

^{page 79 note 2} Ibid. 25 n. 2, 93.Google Scholar

^{page 79 note 3} Fol.116b (Woodbine II, 330).Google Scholar

^{page 79 note 4} As shewn in English Historical Review 59 (1944) 36–7.Google Scholar

^{page 79 note 5} In all editions up to the eighth (p. 375): it was omitted in the ninth.Google Scholar

^{page 79 note 6} Op. cit. 25 n. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 79 note 7} Rymer, , Foedera (Record Commission) I, 292. Stubbs, however, omitted the important writ of 20 (recte 23) July, and printed the assize as though it were an annex to the writ to the sheriff of 18 July, which he took from Foedera I, 291.Google Scholar

^{page 79 note 8} Reproduced also by Luard in Chronica majora (Rolls Series) VI, 256–7.Google Scholar

^{page 79 note 9} Close Rolls, 1251–53 (Rolls Series) 492–3.Google Scholar

^{page 80 note 10} Ibid. 493.Google Scholar

^{page 80 note 11} Cam, , op. cit. 24, 28–29, 32, 35–41. This is true also of the early fourteenth century (Cam, , Liberties and Communities in Medieval England [Cambridge 1944] 156).Google Scholar

^{page 80 note 12} Cam, , Studies in the Hundred Rolls 23, 93. It is to be noted that Bracton’s version (fol.1165: Woodbine II, 330) is in a similar form to later versions.Google Scholar

^{page 80 note 13} Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1247–58 (Rolls Series) 373. The statement in the Dunstable Annals that the justices were at Buckingham on the octave of Michaelmas (Annales Monastici [ed. Luard, Rolls Series 1864–69] III, 192) would appear therefore to be a mistake.Google Scholar

^{page 80 note 14} Close Rolls, 1254–56, 4; Cal. Patent Rolls, 1247–58, 392.Google Scholar

^{page 80 note 15} Close Rolls, 1254–56, 183; Cal. Patent Rolls, 1247–58, 436.Google Scholar

^{page 80 note 16} Ibid. 428, 511.Google Scholar

^{page 80 note 17} Ibid. 511.Google Scholar

^{page 81 note 18} Close Rolls, 1254–56, 154: cf. Cal. Patent Rolls, 1247–58, 399.Google Scholar

^{page 81 note 19} For Gloucestershire in Historia et cartularium monasterii Sancti Petri Gloucestriae (ed. Hart, , Rolls Series 1863–67) II, 276–80; for Staffordshire, , Annales Monastici I, 330–3.Google Scholar

^{page 81 note 20} Ibid. 239.Google Scholar

^{page 81 note 21} Close Rolls, 1254–56, 18, 151.Google Scholar

^{page 81 note 22} The article peculiar to the Gloucestershire chapters which refers to the writ of May 1242 for enforcing watch and ward and the assizes of arms (Cam, , op. cit. 25; Close Rolls, 1237–42, 482–4) may be a local variant. It seems to occur in no other surviving version.Google Scholar

^{page 81 note 23} Cam, , op. cit. 23, 92–5.Google Scholar

^{page 81 note 24} Bracton fol.116b–117: the articles are numbered 12 and 31 by Cam, Miss, op. cit. 93.Google Scholar

^{page 81 note 25} It is also Bracton’s form of the article regarding failure to raise or follow the hue that appears regularly on later occasions (Cam, , op. cit. 23 n. 7).Google Scholar

^{page 82 note 1} Maitland, F. W., Bracton’s Note Book (London 1887) I, 34–45; Güterbock, C., Bracton and His Relation to Roman Law, translated by Brinton Coxe (Philadelphia 1866) 21–30.Google Scholar

^{page 83 note 2} For the details that follow see English Historical Review 59 (1944) 30–35, 40–43.Google Scholar

^{page 83 note 3} The Registers of Walter Bronescombe and Peter Quivil (ed. Hingeston-Randolph, F. C., London 1889) 114, 116, 126, 136.Google Scholar

^{page 83 note 4} English Historical Review 59 (1944) 29, 33–34.Google Scholar

^{page 83 note 5} Drogheda's Summa aurea, as stated above, has been edited by Wahrmund, L., Quellen zur Geschichte des römisch-kanonischen Processes im Mittelalter, Bd. 2, Heft 2. Acton's commentary on the Legatine Constitutions has frequently been printed with Lyndwood's Provinciale: the most convenient edition is that of 1679 printed at Oxford.Google Scholar

^{page 84 note 6} For example, the addicio at fol.183b which reproduces a passage in Tancred, , Ordo judiciarius, Lib.ii, tit. 10.Google Scholar

^{page 84 note 7} I need not give here further references for Bracton’s use of Azo and Tancred. For his use of Raymond’s Summae, see English Historical Review 59 (1944) 376–84 and Law Quarterly Review 61 (1945) 286–92.Google Scholar

^{page 85 note 8} Bracton and Azo, app. i and ii.Google Scholar

^{page 85 note 9} Kuttner, S., Repertorium der Kanonistik (Studi e Testi 71, Vatican City 1937) 443–5.Google Scholar

^{page 85 note 10} A formula in titulus 22 is dated 1235. In any case the Summa de matrimonio was in circulation under Raymond’s name early in the 1240’s (von Schulte, J. F., Geschichte der Quellen des Canonischen Rechts [Stuttgart 1875–80] II, 412).Google Scholar

^{page 85 note 11} English Historical Review 59 (1944) 38–9.Google Scholar

^{page 85 note 12} It is unlikely that the Laws of Edward the Confessor came to Bracton in isolation. The recension he used is known only in the miscellaneous London collection of the thirteenth century, but it may have been included in other collections that have not survived.Google Scholar

^{page 85 note 13} See Law Quarterly Review 54 (1938) 386 n. 18, 395–9.Google Scholar

^{page 85 note 14} Ovid certainly: see Bracton and Azo xxv.Google Scholar

^{page 85 note 15} By Dr. Schulz in English Historical Review 60 (1945) 137–41.Google Scholar

^{page 86 note 16} Traditio 3 (1945) 265–305 Google Scholar

^{page 86 note 17} With fol.155–155b, that is Book III, c.36 of the older editions (Woodbine II, 437–9), compare Inst. 4.4.Google Scholar

^{page 86 note 18} Cf. Woodbine I, 38–39.Google Scholar

^{page 86 note 19} The most striking examples are the passages relating to the kingly office which have been brought together by Schulz, Dr. in English Historical Review 60 (1945) 137–45. To the parallels there adduced there should be added fol.171b, where several lines of fol.5b are repeated almost verbatim: fol.171b should also be compared with fol.34. The passage on changes in the law at fol.107 should be compared with what is said at fol.413b .Google Scholar

^{page 87 note 20} The two first citations in the treatise (passing over an addicio at fol.13) illustrate the two systems. At fol.12 the citation is: ‘ut de termino Sancti Michaelis anno regis Henrici septimo incipiente octavo, circa finem, sicut nec petere.’ At fol. 15 the citation is: ‘de termino Sancti Michaelis anno regis Henrici quinto decimo incipiente sexto decimo in comitatu Berk’, de Roberto de Burneby.’ The former is pl. 1648 and the later pl. 635 in Bracton's Note Book. Google Scholar

^{page 87 note 21} The striking fact is that Bracton’s citations include nearly twice as many cases from the rolls covered by the notebook as cited cases to be found there (Maitland, , Bracton’s Note Book I, 78–9, 146–168). He may have had another notebook with excerpts from other rolls, and part of the existing notebook is missing. But it is hard to believe that the rolls represented in the surviving manuscript were excerpted a second time. The greater part of the cases in the notebook Bracton did not use, and this fact suggests that they were excerpted before he had proceeded far with writing the treatise.Google Scholar

^{page 87 note 1} Woodbine I, 321–2.Google Scholar

^{page 88 note 2} Maitland, , Bracton and Azo 2–133.Google Scholar

^{page 88 note 3} Above, p. 86.Google Scholar

^{page 88 note 4} Law Quarterly Review 61 (1945) 286–89.Google Scholar

^{page 88 note 6} English Historical Review 59 (1944) 379–81.Google Scholar

^{page 88 note 6} Above, p. 76–77.Google Scholar

^{page 88 note 7} Law Quarterly Review 59 (1943) 173–75; Seminar 2 (1944) 43–44; above, pp. 67f., 71.Google Scholar

^{page 89 note 8} English Historical Review 59 (1944) 381–3.Google Scholar

^{page 91 note 9} Woodbine I, 384.Google Scholar

^{page 91 note 10} The addicio at fol.183b ‘Quia cum suis agit etc.’ is derived, as Dr. Schulz has pointed out to me, from Tancred ii.10 (Bergmann 167) ‘Et nota quod cum quis agit etc.’ There is possibly a reminiscence of Tancred i.3 (p. 90) at the beginning of the section, where Bracton’s ‘Officium autem eius est diligenter causam examinare …’ shows some similarity to Tancred’s ‘Officium cuiuslibet iudicis latissimum est. Debet enim omnia quae ad causam pertinent diligenter inquirere et ordinem rerum plena inquisitione discutere …’ But the addicio is the only place in the section where Tancred is followed verbatim, even to the citation of authorities.Google Scholar

^{page 91 note 1} Maitland, , Bracton’s Note Book I, 34–5.Google Scholar

^{page 91 note 2} For the first of these see Bracton fol.33b: ‘Et de hac materia inveniri poterit infra de finali concordia’; for the second see fol.155: ‘Et ideo qualiter fieri debent turni videndum est,’ though what follows is the substance of Inst. 4.4, and the sheriff’s turn is never described in the treatise as we have it. Maitland had a longer list of unfulfilled promises (op. cit. 35). He thought that Bracton promised (at fol.164) to discuss trespass, but the ‘de transgressionibus’ of the vulgate edition seems to have no manuscript authority (Woodbine III, 24) and ‘de translationibus’ does not involve an unfulfilled promise. Another promise mentioned by Maitland, to treat of the action for recovering a villein (fol.7), is an addicio not certainly Bractonian, though it is difficult to suggest why someone else should have added this promise. Again the sentence ‘Sed quia succurritur agentibus et ius suum prosequentibus in eisdem per breve de debito vel quasi, ideo inferius de debito plenius dicetur’ occurs in an addicio (fol.59b–60) which will not be found in Woodbine’s edition (II, 177), on the ground that it is omitted by the manuscripts generally (ibid. I, 382), though why some later annotator should have promised a discussion not to be found in the treatise seems an insoluble puzzle.Google Scholar

^{page 92 note 3} This presumably is what Bracton meant when he said ‘aliquid dicatur de capitulis, exempli causa, qualiter per ordinem ponuntur’ (fol.116).Google Scholar

^{page 92 note 4} Fol.116–116b .Google Scholar

^{page 92 note 5} Bracton’s Note Book III, 538 (pl. 1691).Google Scholar

^{page 93 note 6} Bracton’s borrowings from Inst.3.6, 7, 9, begin at fol.67 and end at fol.68b .Google Scholar

^{page 93 note 7} Woodbine I, 79n. See also the notes to Twiss’ edition (Rolls Series) I, 544.Google Scholar

^{page 93 note 8} Fleta, lib.vi, c.2; Britton (ed. Nichols, , Oxford 1865) II, 320–1.Google Scholar

^{page 93 note 9} The figure originally provided is unknown and presumably ceased to be transmitted at an early date.Google Scholar

^{page 93 note 10} Woodbine I, 28–62.Google Scholar

^{page 93 note 1} Not all manuscripts observe the recognized order, but the variations do not seem to tell us anything of Bracton’s own manuscript: see Woodbine I, 64–91.Google Scholar

^{page 93 note 2} Kantorowicz, H., Bractonian Problems (Glasgow 1941) 33.Google Scholar

^{page 94 note 3} Bracton's Note Book I, 37.Google Scholar

^{page 94 note 4} Bracton and Azo I, 239.Google Scholar

^{page 94 note 5} Woodbine I, 70.Google Scholar

^{page 94 note 6} The dates of cases cited in the treatise are those in Woodbine’s text. They have yet to be identified on the plea rolls. I must acknowledge my indebtedness to Maitland’s introduction to Bracton’s Note Book (I, 38–44), though it is right to say that he was anticipated by Brinton Coxe, whose notes to Güterbock largely cover the same ground. The identification of the Council in no. 5 is due to Coxe (op. cit. 27) and he is followed by Twiss in his note at p. 371 of vol. I of the Rolls Series edition.Google Scholar

^{page 94 note 7} Thus there are excluded the addiciones at fol.49b (Reyne v. Shute 1254), fol.159 (Peter of Savoy: 46 Henry III), fol.277b (Heirs of John of Monmouth: 42 Henry III), fol.285b (St. Mary’s, Oxford: Michaelmas 1253). The first and second of these are regarded as Bractonian by Professor Woodbine, while the third and fourth are rejected by him (I, 381, 391, 406, 407).Google Scholar

^{page 95 note 8} The most recent discussion of Richard of Cornwall's election will be found in Denholm-Young's, N. Richard of Cornwall (Oxford 1947) 86–89, and in a paper by Lucas, H. S., ‘John of Avesnes and Richard of Cornwall,’ Speculum'23 (1948) 94–97. Mr. Denholm-Young suggests that Richard took steps to advance his candidature as early as 5 February, but the evidence will hardly bear this interpretation.Google Scholar

^{page 95 note 9} Close Rolls, 1256–59, 118–20.Google Scholar

^{page 95 note 10} If, as has sometimes been suggested, the reference is to Richard's coronation (17 May 1257) and not to his election, my argument is not materially affected. Matthew Paris is the sole authority for an earlier approach to Richard to become a candidate for the Empire (Chronica maiora ed. Luard, V, 111, 118, 201). Denholm-Young, Mr., op. cit. 81, believes that there were two approaches, in 1247 and 1250: but, in any case, Richard declined and there is no evidence that his candidature was publicly canvassed before 1256.Google Scholar

^{page 95 note 11} See below, p. 103.Google Scholar

^{page 96 note 12} The last folio is numbered 444, but the folios which should have been numbered 173 and 174 bear the numbers 175 and 176.Google Scholar

^{page 96 note 13} Op. cit. 34–5.Google Scholar

^{page 96 note 14} Woodbine I, 302; Yale Law Journal 52 (1943) 441–3.Google Scholar

^{page 96 note 15} For example, Bracton’s sources can be used to correct scribal errors.Google Scholar

^{page 96 note 16} This is, in substance, Maitland’s later hypothesis.Google Scholar

^{page 97 note 17} See above, pp. 88–89.Google Scholar

^{page 97 note 18} Fol.49b. See Bracton’s Note Book I, 39–40.Google Scholar

^{page 97 note 19} See above, p. 66 n. 4 and p. 91 n. 10.Google Scholar

^{page 97 note 20} For these addiciones see Maitland, , Bracton and Azo xvi, 209–214, and Woodbine I, 385–6.Google Scholar

^{page 97 note 21} See above, p. 91 n. 2, for this and a similar promise in an addicio at fol.59b-60.Google Scholar

^{page 97 note 22} See above, p. 92 n. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 97 note 23} Fol. 117b-118. The text will also be found on the Close Roll, but it is clear from the verbal differences that this is not Bracton’s source (Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum [Record Commission] II, 213b-214).Google Scholar

^{page 98 note 24} Fol. 115b .Google Scholar

^{page 98 note 25} English Historical Review 59 (1944) 32–33.Google Scholar

^{page 98 note 26} Above, p. 81f.Google Scholar

^{page 98 note 27} For another view, which suggests that the alternation of ‘layers’ of Roman and English law was deliberate, see Woodbine, I, 38–9, 55 n. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 99 note 28} Above, pp. 74–75.Google Scholar

^{page 99 note 29} No group of the existing manuscripts appears to show any break at this point and the printed editions follow suit. Maitland alone seems to have appreciated that a fresh division should start with the words on fol.112: ‘Et quoniam quandoque competit actio unica contra unum …’ (Bracton and Azo 200).Google Scholar

^{page 99 note 30} English Historical Review 59 (1944) 33–34.Google Scholar

^{page 99 note 31} Fol.1.Google Scholar

^{page 100 note 32} English Historical Review, ut supra.Google Scholar

^{page 100 note 1} Woodbine, , I, 341–2.Google Scholar

^{page 100 note 2} Güterbock, , op. cit. 26–7; Maitland, , Bracton’s Note Book I, 41–2.Google Scholar

^{page 100 note 3} These questions have been discussed by Jacob, E. F., Studies in the Period of Baronial Reform (Oxford Studies in Social and Legal History 8, Oxford 1925) 71–90; Treharne, R. F., The Baronial Plan of Reform (Manchester 1932) 133–36, 157–69; and Powicke, F. M., King Henry III and the Lord Edward (Oxford 1947) I, 397–402. For the part played by the judges see Richardson, and Sayles, , The Provisions of Oxford 7–10, 33 (reprinted from Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 17, 1933).Google Scholar

^{page 101 note 4} As Maitland indicated, it can hardly be that Bracton did not regard the Provisions of Westminster as definitive legislation (Bracton’s Note Book I, 41–2). The king may have been reluctant to be bound by them: but the ratification of 1259 was followed by further ratifications in 1263 and 1264 (Jacob, , op. cit. 76–7, 121–3) and by the Statute of Marlborough in 1267. Moreover, the Provisions were being cited in pleading as early as 1260 (Richardson, and Sayles, , The Early Statutes [London 1934] 5).Google Scholar

^{page 101 note 5} For example, the addiciones at fol.159 and at fol.277b, the former of which is regarded as Bractonian by Professor Woodbine and the latter (and earlier) rejected: see above, p. 94, n. 7.Google Scholar

^{page 101 note 6} Woodbine, I, 302–3.Google Scholar

^{page 101 note 7} Woodbine, I, 321.Google Scholar

^{page 101 note 8} Woodbine, II, 305.Google Scholar

^{page 101 note 9} Ibid. 317–8.Google Scholar

^{page 101 note 10} Ibid. 338.Google Scholar

^{page 101 note 11} Bracton’s source and the necessary correction were pointed out by Schulz, Dr. in Law Quarterly Review 61 (1945) 287, 290. Another manuscript reading is ‘in nuctu …’ Either reading may be a miscopying of ‘īmo cū dolore animi.' Google Scholar

^{page 102 note 12} Above, pp. 92–93.Google Scholar

^{page 102 note 13} Above, pp. 98–99.Google Scholar

^{page 102 note 14} Bractonian Problems 38.Google Scholar

^{page 102 note 16} Law Quarterly Review 59 (1943) 172–80; Seminar 2 (1944) 42, 50.Google Scholar

^{page 102 note 16} Traditio 3 (1945) 292–304.Google Scholar

^{page 102 note 17} Ibid. 287, 292–3. Dr. Schulz twice states that the interpolator was probably the redactor, but he appears to assume the identity of the two. I have followed him, for I do not think his argument is assisted by multiplying the hands which are supposed to have been engaged in debasing Bracton’s text.Google Scholar

^{page 103 note 18} Ibid. 293.Google Scholar

^{page 103 note 19} I have made some small corrections in this sentence as printed.Google Scholar

^{page 103 note 20} Close Rolls, 1254–1256, 414–5.Google Scholar

^{page 103 note 21} Red Book of the Exchequer (ed. Hall, , Rolls Series) I, cix.Google Scholar

^{page 103 note 22} Henry of Bath, Henry de la Mare and Bracton were present when the terms of the writ were settled (Close Rolls, ut supra).Google Scholar

^{page 103 note 23} In the Exchequer Liber X, the date is given as 4 June 54 Henry III (i.e. 1270), but in Cotton MS Claudius D.II, fol.258v, the year is 44 Henry III though the day of the month is not given (Statutes of the Realm [Record Commission] I, 7). Brit. Mus. Hargrave MS 433, fol.125, gives the same reading as Claudius D.II. Since 1260 was a leap-year and 1270 was not, it would seem obvious that in Liber X the year date has been blundered and that it should read xliv° and not liv°.Google Scholar

^{page 103 note 24} Close Rolls, 1234–1287, 337–39; Statutes of the Realm I, 4.Google Scholar

^{page 103 note 25} Law Quarterly Review 54 (1938) 390–2.Google Scholar

^{page 103 note 26} Annales Monastici (Rolls Series) I, 249–51; Powicke, , op. cit. (n. 3) II, 771.Google Scholar

^{page 103 note 27} Richardson, and Sayles, , The Early Statutes 18–19.Google Scholar

^{page 104 note 28} We might generalize the very pertinent remarks on Bracton’s copy of Azo in Woodbine I, 301–2, and Yale Law Journal 52 (1943) 432.Google Scholar

^{page 104 note 29} Richardson, and Sayles, , The Early Statutes 4–5 n. 22.Google Scholar