¹ A man who is excused from coming to court on account of a malady which compels him to stay in bed. On the etymology of ‘essoniare’ (essonium) see Brunner, H., Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte 2 (2nd ed. by C. v Schwerin 1928) 448 n. 37Google Scholar

² See McIlwain, , ‘The Present Status of the Problem of the Bracton Text', Harvard Law Rev. 57 (1943) 220ff.; Schulz, F, ‘A New Approach to Bracton', Seminar 2 (1944) 41; ‘Bracton on Kingship', English Historical Review 60 (1945) 136.Google Scholar

¹ Bracton's Note Book 1–3 (1887). The title is misleading; see Stenton, D. M., Rolls of the Justices in Eyre (Seiden Society 53, 1934) xii, but also Richardson, ‘Azo, Drogheda, and Bracton,’ Engl. Hist. Rev. 59 (1944) 36.Google Scholar

² Maitland, , op. cit. 1, 43.Google Scholar

³ For the Latin text see Statutes of the Realm 1, 199.Google Scholar

⁴ Maitland, , op. cit. 3, 301: ‘secundum Martinum’ On Pattishall see Stenton, D. M., op. cit. xvi–xviii.Google Scholar

⁵ See below at n. 25.Google Scholar

⁶ It is remarkable that in Bracton's Note Book the tract on leap-year is followed by a statute of the same year 1256. Is this merely a coincidence?Google Scholar

⁷ Statutes at large 1 (1762) 32.Google Scholar

⁸ The Statutes of the Realm 1 (1810) 7 Google Scholar

⁹ Maitland, , op. cit. (supra n. 1) 1, 42 n. 7; Holdsworth, Hist of Engl. Law 2 (4th ed. 1936) 221; Richardson, Engl. Hist. Rev. 59 (1944) 37.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Maitland, , op. cit.Google Scholar

¹¹ Close Rolls of the Reign of Henry III preserved in the Public Record Office A.D. 1254–1256 (1931) p. 414.Google Scholar

¹² Kantorowicz, H., ‘Accursio e la sua biblioteca', Rivista di Storia del Diritto Italiano 2 (1929) 43 with references; Torelli, Ter l'edizione critica della glossa Accursiana alle Istituzioni', Riv. di Storia del Diritto Ital. 7 (1934) 437–42.Google Scholar

¹³ Kutther, S. and Smalley, B., ‘The Glossa Ordinaria to the Gregorian Decretals', Engl. Hist. Rev. 60 (1945) 97–101.Google Scholar

¹⁴ The material has been collected in the ThLL 2, 2013. The chief passages are: Censorinus, De die natali c. 20; Ammianus 26, 1, 7 seq.; Macrob., Sat. 1 c. 13 and 14; St. Augustine, De trinitate lib. 4, 8 (PL 42, 893); De Genesi cap. XIV, 29 (PL 34, 275); S. Isidore of Seville, Etym. 6, 17, 25 and 26.Google Scholar

¹⁵ ed. Karl Manitius with a German translation (1898 Teubner).Google Scholar

¹⁶ See Tittel, PWK 7, 1030; Christ-Schmid, , Geschichte der griechischen Literatur II, 1 (6th ed. 1920) §557 p. 446.Google Scholar

¹⁷ ed. Heiberg (1898–1907 Teubner); a German translation by Karl Manitius, Des Claudius Ptolemaeus Handbuch der Astronomie (1912–13 Teubner).Google Scholar

¹⁸ See Christ-Schmid-Stählin, , Geschichte der griech. Lit. II, 2 (6th ed. 1924) §771 p. 817 Google Scholar

¹⁹ See Manitius, , Gemini Elementa Astron. p. xix and Des Claud. Ptolem. Handb. 1, xii. See further Ch. Haskins, H., Studies in the History of Mediaeval Science (1st ed. 1924, 2nd ed. 1927; the pagination is the same in both editions) 11; 15; 103–12.Google Scholar

²⁰ See Henel, Heinrich, ‘Studien zum altenglischen Computus’ (Beiträge zur Engl. Philologie. herausgeg. von Max Förster, Heft 26, 1934) 1; Ch. W Jones, Bedae Opera de temporibus (Public, of the Mediaeval Acad, of America 1943) 75.Google Scholar

²¹ Gl. calendis est ad D. (50, 16) 98: ‘Et ille dies additur Februario et tunc duobus diebus morantur computistae super una littera.’ Gl. bissexto ad D. (4, 4) 3, 3: ‘Nota, quod unusquisque annus habet 365 dies et 6 horas plus secundum philosophos.'Google Scholar

²² See Meier, Gabriel, Die sieben freien Künste im Mittelalter (1887; not accessible); Steele, Robert, Opera hactenus inedita Rogeri Baconis Fasc. VI: Compotus Fratris Rogeri (1926) p. xvi. For the study of the computus in Oxford see Statuta antiqua Universitatis Oxoniensis ed. Gibson, Strickland (1931) p. 33 line 18 (before 1350); line 37 (before 1350); p. 200 line 28 (1409); p. xc and xciv; Rashdall, H., The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages, New ed. by Powicke and Emden 3 (1936) 153.Google Scholar

²³ See Capitularia Regum Francorum ed. Boretius 1 (1883) 60; 121; 235; 363; 403. (MGH Legum Sectio II torn. 1); Steele, op. cit. xv; Canones et decreta concilii Tridentini ed. Aem. Richter, L. (1853), Sess. XXIII cap. 18 ‘Forma agendi seminarium clericorum etc’ (p. 209): ‘Grammatices, cantus, computi ecclesiastici aliarumque bonarum artium disciplinam discent.'Google Scholar

²⁴ Incomplete references in Henel, op. cit. (supra n. 20) 1ff.; Jones, op. cit. (supra n. 20) 3ff. 75ff.; Haskins, op. cit. (supra n. 19) 83ff.; Steele, op. cit. vii seq. xiii seq. xvii seq.Google Scholar

²⁵ Brit. Mus. Cotton MS. Vitellius A 12, inc. ‘Sepe auctorum volumina', fol. 81 (or 87)–97 (or 97^v): Haskins 87, Steele p. xx.Google Scholar

²⁶ An eminent scholar like Maitland did not know of it; see Note Book 1, 43 and below ch. II n. 35. The remarks of Sir Travers Twiss in the introduction to the 5th vol. of his edition (Rolls Series 70, 1882) lxii–lxxi are not helpful.Google Scholar

²⁷ See also the computus of A.D. 727, MS. Bern 611 ed. Krusch, B., op. cit. 53ff.; on the leap-year: p. 55–56. On this work see Jones, op. cit. 373.Google Scholar

²⁸ See Macray, , Cod. Manuscript. Biblioth. Bodleianae Pars nona; Codices a Kenelm Digby donatos complectens (1883) col. 59 no. 11.Google Scholar

²⁹ Macray, , op. cit. col. 59 no. 13. Haskin's remarks on this MS. (op. cit. 86 n. 23) are arred by blunders.Google Scholar

³⁰ Macray, , op. cit. col. 59 no. 14.Google Scholar

³¹ Macray, , op. cit. col. 37 no. 4.Google Scholar

³² On this MS. see Franz Boll, Sphaera (1903) 444.Google Scholar

³³ There exist numerous manuscripts of this work, but none was accessible while I was writing this paper. In the meantime, I have seen the Bodleian MS Canon. Misc. 161, saec. xiii.Google Scholar

¹ See Handbook of British Chronology ed. b F. M. Powicke, Ch. Johnson, and Harte, W J. (1939) p. 373.Google Scholar

² To wit 365d. 5h. 48m. 46s.Google Scholar

³ Claud, . Ptolemaeus, , op. cit. (supra ch. I n. 17) lib. 3 cap. 1, particularly p. 207 ed. Heiberg, ; Manitius, Des Claud. Ptol. Handbuch 1, 145.Google Scholar

⁴ See above ch. I n. 19.Google Scholar

⁵ See further Roger Bacon, op. cit. (no. 29 of the list ch. I supra) I, cap. 3 pp. 13–18; II, cap. 2 p. 89.Google Scholar

⁶ See Grotefend, H., Zeitrechnung des deutschen Mittelalters und der Neuzeit 1 (1898) 179; Taschenbuch der Zeitrechnung des deutschen Mittelalters u. der Neuzeit (1898) 3; Franz Rühl, , Chronologie des Mittelalters und der Neuzeit (1897) 64.Google Scholar

⁷ In the Middle Ages this abbreviation means: ‘sexto calendas (or calendarum) Martii'; see Rühl, , op. cit. 72.Google Scholar

⁸ ‘Secundo calendas Martii’ instead of the classical ‘pridie kal. Mart.'; see Rühl l.c. Google Scholar

⁹ Gl. calendis est ad D. (50, 16) 98.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Computus (no. 27 of the list ch. I supra) tit. de anno bissextili. Google Scholar

¹¹ Tract. §19 (below ch. VII).Google Scholar

¹² See Mommsen, Th., Gesammelte Schriften 3 (1907) 327–338.Google Scholar

¹³ See Baxter, J. H. and Johnson, Ch., Medieval Latin Word-List (1934) 160: ‘dies excrescens’ = intercalary day; ca. 1258. On ‘bissextilis’ and ‘bissextus’ see ibid. 48. In Du Cange's Glossarium the term is not mentioned. It occurs in Grosseteste's computus (no. 28 of our list), e.g. pp. 225, 226, not however with special reference to the intercalary day of the Julian calendar. A computus of A.D. 1164 (probably written by an English computist) has excrescit dies: see below sect. VGoogle Scholar

¹⁴ The Glossa ordinaria ad X. (5, 40) 14 says: ‘Dicitur “bissextus,” quia bis sedetur et Statur in una littera calendarii.’ The Italians pronounced ‘bissextus’ as ‘bissestus,’ hence the puerile etymology ‘bissestus’ = ‘bis se(detur et) st(atur in una littera).’ It was adopted by Durantis, op. cit. (no. 30 of the list ch. I supra) lib. 8 cap. 3 §19. Another etymology is given by Accursius, Gl. vigintinovem ad D. (50, 16) 98: ‘Bissextus dictus est, quia bis dicitur VI. kal. Mart., vel verius (N.B.) quia ex bessibus momentorum colligitur.’ For a detailed exposition of this idea as given by Accursius I may refer to the gloss. This etymology was approved by Vincent of Beauvais (Speculum naturale lib. 15 cap. 88) and Durantis, op. cit. lib. 8 cap. 3 §18, but rejected by Roger Bacon, op. cit. (no. 29 of our list) I cap. 3 p. 18. It does Bracton credit that he left these silly etymologies unmentioned. ¹⁵ Etym. 6, 17, 25 and 26.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Scil. ‘ductus unciae.'Google Scholar

¹⁷ Ed. Krusch 343.Google Scholar

¹⁸ See Krusch, B., Mél. Chatelain (cited in no. 7 of the list ch. I) 235 and Jones, op. cit. (supra ch. I note 20) 372–74.Google Scholar

¹⁹ This word must needs be added.Google Scholar

²⁰ De temporum ratione (no. 6 of our list) cap. 39.Google Scholar

²¹ I will give some examples: Pseudo-Alcuin (no. 4 of our list) PL 101, 994; Computus of A.D. 727 (supra ch. I note 27); Computus of the 8th or 9th cent. (no. 11 of our list) fol. 26: ‘12 horae faciunt unum diem'; Pseudo-Beda, De arg. lunae (no. 10) col. 722; Computus about 810 (no. 12) cap. 41, 42; Aelfric (no. 16) cap. VII p. 52; Robert of Jumièges (no. 18) p. 42; Summa de computo of A.D. 1164 (no. 23) fol. 218: ‘Dicitur autem “bissextus,” quia, ubi inseritur, dies ille bis sexto kalendas dicitur Vel dicitur “bissextus” a bis sex horis, quae diem artificialem (i.e. from sunrise to sunset, 6 a.m. till 6 p.m., see below ch. VIII §21) constituunt.’ Michael Scot, Liber introductorius (no. 26) fol. 85 has copied Pseudo-Dionysius with slight variations. Magister Wilhelmus (no. 22) rightly says fol. 212: ‘bissextus, quia ex bis bis (N.B.) senis horis collectus vel quattuor senis.’ Similarly Bacon, R. (no. 29) I, cap. 3, p. 18: ‘Isidorus autem 6. libro etymolog. dicit, quod ideo dicitur “bissextus” eo quod bis sexies ductus assem facit id est unitatem. Hoc est, quia ex sex horis in quolibet anno superfluis in binarium bis sex ductis, seu ex binario bis in senarium ducto.'Google Scholar

²² See below ch. VIII §27Google Scholar

²³ Op. cit. (supra n. 12). Ammianus 26, 1, 7 and the inscription CIL 8, 6679 = Dessau, ILS 4919 are decisive. What Kubitschek (PWK 3,503) has said against Mommsen, is negligible. The statement in Sandys, J. E., A Companion to Latin Studies (3rd ed. 1925) no. 121 p. 100 is wrong and ought to be corrected in the next edition.Google Scholar

²⁴ Mommsen, , op. cit. 333, 334.Google Scholar

²⁵ And even later: Savigny, System des heutigen Römischen Rechts 4 (1841) §192 p. 458; Grotefend, , op. cit. (supra n. 6) 1, 167; Glück, Ausführliche Erläuterung der Paniecten 3 (1806) §269c p. 577ff.Google Scholar

²⁶ About the end of the 12th cent.; see Savigny, Geschichte des Röm. Rechts im Mittelalter 4 (2nd ed. 1850) 291.Google Scholar

²⁷ Op. cit. (supra ch. I no. 21) p. 75 tit. De festivitate sancti Mathiae apostoli. Google Scholar

²⁸ L.c.: ‘Mai ço truvum escrit/Que maistre Turkils dit/Enz el primier chapitre/Quil fait de secunt livre/Que la feste iert guardee/Tuz tenz e celebree/El jurn ki aprof vient.’ On the computist Turkil see Haskins, op. cit. (supra ch. I n. 19) 84; 113; 127–33.Google Scholar

²⁹ Savigny, , System (supra n. 25) 458.Google Scholar

³⁰ No. 11 of our list, fol. 26^v Google Scholar

³¹ Op. cit. (no. 17 of our list) p. 71.Google Scholar

³² In truth a quite impossible interpretation.Google Scholar

³³ Above ch. I sect. IVGoogle Scholar

³⁴ I cannot tell how old this verse is. In a calendar of the 12th century in the Bodleian MS Digby 56, fol. 156ff. (Macray, op. cit. supra ch. I n. 28 col. 59) there is the following note on VI. kal. Mart.: ‘Mathie apostoli. locus bissextilis. Hic fac bissextum, Mathie post cole festum’ The last sentence is a hexameter.Google Scholar

³⁵ Maitland, Note Book 1, 43 is wrong in saying: ‘The writ provides for the future the 29th of February shall be reckoned as making one day with the 28th’ Maitland overlooked the fact that in the Middle Ages February 29th was not the intercalary dayGoogle Scholar

³⁶ See D (4, 4) 3, 3; (50, 16) 98: ‘Id biduum pro uno die habetur.’ Alexander III; X. (5, 40) 14: ‘Ipsum autem festum sive fiat praecedenti die sive in sequenti, qui duo quasi pro uno reputantur.'Google Scholar

³⁷ See above p. 275f.Google Scholar

³⁸ Ammianus 26, 1, 10: ‘ne autumnalis mensis inveniatur quandoque vernalis.’ Augustine, S., De trinitate 4, 4, 8 (supra ch. I n. 14): ‘ne temporum ordo turbetur.'Google Scholar

³⁹ 364 years = 4 × 91 years.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Sacrobosco means to say: After 364 years the 25th of December would fall on the 25th of September and on the latter date the day from sunrise to sunset is as long as on Annunciation Day (25th of March).Google Scholar

⁴¹ Sacrobosco means: In 728 years 182 days would be neglected, accordingly the 25th of December would then fall on S. John's Day (24th of June). The computation is not quite exact.Google Scholar

⁴² See e.g. Helperic, , op. cit. (no. 14 of our list ch. I supra) col. 23: ‘Qui dies si negligatur, eveniet post aliquot annos, ut hieme aestivi et contra aestate hiberni menses occurrant. Nam post 364 annos tantum calculatio regradabit, ut in kalendis aequinoctiorum solstitia, et contra in solstitiorum eveniant aequinoctia. Id est: cum XII kal. April pronuntiaveris et debeat esse aequinoctium vernale, appareat solstitium brumale, quod est XII. kal. Jan. Cumque pronuntiaveris XII. kal. Jul., quod est solstitium aestivum, occurrat aequinoctium vertfale, quod esse debet XII. kal. April. Sicque in ceteris eveniet anni diebus. Ad hunc evitandum errorem bissextilis dies quarto semper anno intercalatur.’ Similarly Gerland, op. cit. (ibid. no. 20) cap. 2 fol. 171; Roger of Hereford, op. cit. (no. 24) fol. 27; Philip of Thaon, op. cit. (no. 21) tit. Quare servatur bissextus, expressly citing Helperic. But already Bede gave this exposition: De temporibus c. 10; De temporum ratione c. 38. Our editions (no. 5 and 6 of the list) have wrongly 365 instead of 364, though obviously Bede did not write a number not divisible by four. Even Jones has not realized that.Google Scholar

⁴³ Note Book 3, 300.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ See below ch. VII §11.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ See also below, sect. VI of the present chapter.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Cp. Bracton's text in both the Note Book and the Treatise with Helperic's text given in n. 42.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Below ch. V sect. II.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ On the term, dies excrescens, see above at n. 13.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Below ch. VII §25.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ See above at n. 45.Google Scholar

¹ Ch. I sect. IVGoogle Scholar

² Ibid. Google Scholar

³ For the literature on the following texts see Glück, Ausführliche Erläuterung der Pandecten 3 (1806) §269c p. 574–88; Schulting-Smallenburg, Notae ad Digesta (1804–1835); Savigny, System des heutigen Röm. Rechts 4 (1841) §192–94, p. 453–74; Th. Mommsen, ‘Zur Lehre vom Schalttag’ (1859), Gesammelte Schriften 3 (1907) 326–34; Windscheid, Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts (9th ed. by Th. Kipp) 1 (1906) §103 p. 531–39; Index Interpolationum ed. by Levy, E. and Rabel, E. (1929–35).Google Scholar

⁴ Lenel, O., Palingenesia Iuris Civilis 1 (1889) 168.Google Scholar

⁵ On scribal blunders of this kind see O. Lenel, Das Edictum perpetuum (3rd ed. 1927) 8.Google Scholar

⁶ Lenel, , Paling. 1, 163.Google Scholar

⁷ See e.g. Gaius, , Inst. 1, 29 and 38.Google Scholar

⁸ This second day is according to our calendar February 25th; here again we must not count backward and regard February 24th as the second day (as ‘dies posterior'). See Mommsen, , op. cit. (supra n. 3) 331–2.Google Scholar

⁹ ‘Dies natalis’ means ‘birthday’ (i.e. the anniversary of the birth) and not the ‘day of the birth’ (dies qua quis natus est).Google Scholar

¹⁰ In this respect the text of D. (4, 4) 3, 3 (below, II) is better; here ‘nam’ follows immediately after ‘nihil referre'Google Scholar

¹¹ It is no wonder that Accursius misunderstood the clumsy sentence: see Gl. natus ad h. 1.Google Scholar

¹² See above ch. II sect. V, and below ch. V sect. II.Google Scholar

¹³ Above, I.Google Scholar

¹⁴ See Lenel, , Paling. 2, 470.Google Scholar

¹⁵ See the similar gloss above, I.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Johannes Bassianus.Google Scholar

¹⁷ On the reconstruction see the references in the Index Interpolationum. Google Scholar

¹⁸ Lenel, , Edict. §198 p. 407; Wenger, L., Institutes of the Roman Law of Civil Procedure, revised ed., translated by O. H. Fisk (1940) §21 p. 223.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Gaius, , Inst. 4, 104: ‘vulgo dicitur e lege Iulia litem anno et sex mensibus mori;’ see Wenger, , op. cit. §17 p. 178.Google Scholar

²⁰ Lenel, , Paling. 1, 601.Google Scholar

²¹ D. (4, 4) 3, 3: above, II.Google Scholar

²² The printed editions of the Digestum Novum have ‘secundum H.'; thus also MS. Canon. Misc. 491 (Digestum Novum) in the Bodleian Library The MS. was certainly written in the 13th century Coxe (Catalogi Codicum manuscript. Biblioth. Bodleian. Pars tertia Codices Graecos et Latinos Canonicianos complectens, 1854) wrongly attributed it to the 14th century. The siglum ‘H.’ certainly means ‘Hugolinum': Savigny, Geschichte des Rom. Rechts im Mittelalter (2nd ed.) 5 (1850) 244; Seckel, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung f. Rechtsgesch. Rom. Abt. 45 (1925) 15; H. Kantorowicz, Studies in the Glossators of the Roman Law (1938) 103. Nevertheless Accursius probably had in mind ‘Hugo’ and not ‘Hugolinus', for the latter's master was Johannes Bassianus, (Savigny, op. cit. §19 p. 49) who gave a different solution. Hugolinus’ apparatus on the Digestum Novum (Savigny, op. cit. p. 53) is inaccessible for the time being.Google Scholar

²³ D. (50, 16) 98: above, I.Google Scholar

²⁴ D. (4, 8) pr.—to which passage Gl. postea offeratur remarks: ‘Vel verius hic ab arbitro fuit dies appositus, ibi a lege.'Google Scholar

²⁵ Savigny, , System (supra n. 3) 4 §193 p. 470; Windscheid, op. cit. (supra n. 3); Beseler, G., Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung, Rom. Abt. 53 (1933) 16.Google Scholar

²⁶ Savigny, , op. cit. p. 469.Google Scholar

²⁷ Savigny, , op. cit. p. 469 note i. Google Scholar

²⁸ See Mommsen, , Digesta 2 (1870) p. 459.Google Scholar

²⁹ Gl. bissexto ad h. 1.: ‘alias “quibuslibet” alias “bissexto,” et haec (scil, littera) bona.'Google Scholar

³⁰ See further below ch. V sect. II.Google Scholar

¹ Ch. II, sect. IVGoogle Scholar

² Ibid. at n. 33.Google Scholar

³ On Tancred's gloss to the Compilatio prima see Kuttner, S., ‘Bernardus Compostellanus Antiquus', Traditio 1 (1943) 311 n. 15.Google Scholar

⁴ I give the text according to the edition Paris 1507 per Udalricum Gering et magistrum Bertholdum Rembolt. I have compared the Bodleian MS. of the Decretals hat. th. b.4 written A.D. 1241 on which see Kuttner and Smalley, op. cit. (supra ch. I n. 13).Google Scholar

⁵ Both the print and the manuscript used by me have ‘computantur'Google Scholar

⁶ D. (4, 4) 3, 3, above ch. III sect. II.Google Scholar

⁷ D. (50, 16) 98, ibid. sect. I.Google Scholar

⁸ The meaning is: Alexander's decretal has been inserted in the title de verborum significatione with good reason, as 1. ‘cum bissextus’ is also inserted in the title de verborum significatione of the Digest.Google Scholar

⁹ D. (40, 7) 4, 5, above ch. III sect. IVGoogle Scholar

¹⁰ This is the so-called consuetudo Bononiensis, on which see Rühl, op. cit. (supra ch. II n.6) p. 75. According to this kind of dating, the dies bissextus (February 24th of the modern calendar) is indeed the fifth day counted backwards from February 29th (see above ch. II sect. II), as the intercalary day is not regarded as a day proper. See ‘Annales Foroiulienses', MGH Script. 19 (1866) p. 198: ‘1272 in vigilia sancti Mathiae, die bissexti, 5 exeunte Februario’ The editor remarked in a footnote: ‘bissextus est dies 6. exeunte Februario', which remark though repeated by Grotefend, Zeitrechnung (supra ch. II n. 6) 1, 167 n. 2 is obviously wrong, as the bissextus is not counted as a proper dayGoogle Scholar

¹¹ Both the print and the manuscript used by me have ‘vigilia’ instead of ‘festa'; but ‘vigilia’ is certainly wrong, as the following verse shows. I had no opportunity to compare a manuscript of Tancred's gloss.Google Scholar

¹² On this verse see above ch. II n. 34.Google Scholar

¹³ See above nn. 6 and 7Google Scholar

¹⁴ On Laurentius see Kuttner, , Repertorium der Kanonistik 1 (1937) 528.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Above n. 9.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Decr Grat. C. 33 qu. 3 dist. 1 c. 18: ‘Poenae, sicut in Digestis legitur, legum interpretatione molliendae sunt potius quam exasperandae'Google Scholar

¹⁷ In Durham, MS., Chapter Library C. III. 4, which contains Tancred's apparatus (Kuttner, Repertorium 1, 334) the words ‘Sed pone—poenae’ are absent. Apparently the MS. contains the first edition of the apparatus which Tancred revised and enlarged later; see Kuttner, , l. c. supra n. 3.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Above ch. III, sect. IVGoogle Scholar

¹ Above ch. II sect. VGoogle Scholar

² A malady which compells him to stay in bed. Such a malady is regarded as ‘vis maior’ (‘echte Not'): ‘pour ce que Dieu est plus fort que tout le monde et nous peut donner maladie et santé, quand il luy plaist’ (Très ancienne Coutume de Bretagne 3, 91; Bourdot de Richebourg, Nouv. Coutumier général 4, 222). See H. Brunner, ‘Die Zulässigkeit der Anwaltschaft im französischen, normannischen und englischen Rechte des Mittelalters', Forschungen zur Geschichte des deutschen und französischen Rechtes (1894) 394; Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte 2 (2nd ed. by C. v. Schwerin, 1928) 447ff. See further Reeves, History of English Law 1 (ed. by Finlason 1869) 406ff.; E. Glasson, Histoire du droit et des institutions de l'Angleterre 2 (1882) §74 p. 435ff.; Ad. Tardif, La procédure civile et criminelle aux XIII ^e et XIV ^e siècles (1885) 55.Google Scholar

³ Cp. Le très ancien Coutumier de Normandie (Coutumiers de Normandie ed. Tardif, E. J. 1, 1888) cap. 82, 3 (p. 87): ‘Illa die iudicabitur, quod aeger videatur, per quattuor milites ad minus vel vavassores, qui habent recordationem, et si illi invenerint ipsum infirmum, assignabunt ei terminum ad annum et diem;’ cap. 42, 2 (p. 35): ‘Qui languor per legitimos hommes plures visus erit, utrum homo ille iacens in lecto ficte se languidum faciat vel infirmum. Qui languor expectari solet annum (N.B.) et tunc veniat, si poterit vel responsalem mittat.’ Beaumanoir, Coutumes de Beauvais (ed. Salmon 1899–1900) no. 128.Google Scholar

⁴ On this formula see Puntschart, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung, German. Abt. 32 (1911) 328ff.; Brunner, H., ‘Luft macht frei,’ Abhandlungen zur Rechtsgeschichte herausg. von Rauch, K. 6 (1931) 366ff. 411 n. 1; Maitland, , Law Quarterly Rev. 5 (1889) 253ff.; Bateson, M., Borough Customs 1, 270ff. (Seiden Society 18, 1904) id. 2, Introd. p. cxv (Seiden Society 21, 1906); Liebermann, F., Gesetze der Angelsachsen 2,526 v. ‘Jahr und Tag'.—Schröder, Wrong R., Lehrbuch der deutschen Rechtsgeschichte (6th ed. by v- Künssberg) §61 p. 789.Google Scholar

⁵ The writ as given by Glanvil 1, 19 (ed. Woodbine 1932) does not differ in any substantial point.Google Scholar

⁶ These words, omitted in our manuscripts and editions are absolutely necessary They are the verba generalia to which the last sentence of this text expressly refers.Google Scholar

⁷ Instead of tali die the knights inserted a certain calendar day.Google Scholar

⁸ See e.g. Curia Regis Rolls 7 (1935) p. 349 A.D 1199: ‘et languor erat ei adiudicatus et dies fuit ei positus (ut ipse dicit) apud Turrim Londoniae die Mercurii proximo ante festum sancti Bartholomei (August 24th) et tunc venit apud Westmonasterium et optulit se.'Google Scholar

⁹ To be sure the question has never been sufficiently discussed.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Op. cit. (supra eh. I n. 1) 3, 300.Google Scholar

¹¹ On ‘66’ instead of ‘366’ see below ch. VIII §6.Google Scholar

¹² ‘Hora nona’ = ‘noon': Rühl, op. cit. (supra ch. II n. 6) 211; Murray, A new English Dictionary, v. ‘noon'Google Scholar

¹³ See below ch. VIII §6.Google Scholar

^13a See Bracton fol. 352^v: above, I.Google Scholar

^13b See e.g. Le très ancien Cout, de Normandie cap. 42, 2, above n. 3; Brunner, ‘Luft macht frei', op. cit. (supra n. 4) 411 n. 6; Seiden Society 53 no. 466 and no. 565; 56 no. 277; 59 no. 1425 and no. 1455.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Easter fell in A.D 1200 on April 9th, consequently Trinity (8th Sunday after Easter) on June 4th. In 1201 St. Barnabas’ day (June 11th) fell on a Monday, consequently Monday before St. Barnabas was June 4th.—I cannot explain my computation here and must refer readers not familiar with the method to the chronological handbooks by Grotefend and Rühl cited above ch. II n. 6. Even the small book by Hans Lietzmann, Zeitrechnung der Kniserzeit, des Mittelalters und der Neuzeit (Sammlung Göschen 1934) is sufficient. The cumbrous art. ‘Calendrier’ in the Dictionnaire de droit canonique 2 (1937) is unfit for practical historical purposes.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Mrs. Stenton p. 372, counting the three days in the modern way, regarded December 24th as dies comparendi. If she were right, the computation of the knights would be wrong.Google Scholar

^15a See Note Book; above, II.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Unfortunately the Latin texts have not been edited but only an English translation.Google Scholar

¹⁷ See the chronological handbooks cited in n. 14.Google Scholar

¹⁸ The remark of the editor p. 370 n. 2 is erroneous.Google Scholar

¹⁹ See the text quoted below ch. VIII §§22–3.Google Scholar

²⁰ See Matth, . Parisiensis, Chron. Maiora 3, 190 (Rolls Series 57c, 1876): ‘Eodem anno (A.D. 1229) obiit Martinus de Pateshulle, decanus Londoniensis, XVIII kal. Dec, vir mirae prudentiae et legum terrae peritus.'Google Scholar

²¹ See above ch. III sect. III.Google Scholar

²² See ch. III sect. IV; ch. IVGoogle Scholar

²³ See in particular the computus of A.D. 1164, fol. 218, as quoted above ch. II sect. VGoogle Scholar

²⁴ See the text above ch. I sect. III.Google Scholar

²⁵ ‘Occasionare’ means ‘in ius vocare, litem iniustam movere, vexare': Du Cange 6 (1886) 25.Google Scholar

¹ Ch. I sect. I; ch. V sect. II.Google Scholar

² See §23 below ch. VII and ch. VIII.Google Scholar

³ Sherlock Holmes in Conan Doyle, The Sign of Four ch. VI.Google Scholar

¹ See Woodbine, 1, 5.Google Scholar

^1a See Kantorowicz, H., Bractonian Problems (1941) 132.Google Scholar

² Woodbine's text has ‘aliud', apparently a misprint.Google Scholar

³ Woodbine's text has ‘horas', apparently a misprint.Google Scholar

⁴ For Bracton's genuine text see below ch. VIII §§22, 23.Google Scholar

⁵ Ibid. Google Scholar

¹ Op. cit. (supra ch. V n. 2) 428–30. See further Holdsworth, History 2 (4th ed. 1936 316; Plucknett, A Concise History of the Common Law (2nd ed. 1936) 194 with references H. Cohen, History of the English Bar and Attornatus to 1450 (1929) 616 v. responsalis.Google Scholar

² See the text above ch. V sect. II.Google Scholar

³ Above ch. I sect. III.Google Scholar

⁴ Ch. II sect. IVGoogle Scholar

⁵ See Poole, R. L., ‘The Beginning of the Year in the Middle Ages', Studies in Chronology and History (1934) 1ff. Google Scholar

⁶ Ch. III, ad D. (50, 16) 98 pr.; see also ad D. (4, 4) 3, 3.Google Scholar

⁷ Just a few words on what Woodbine calls ‘additio’ contained in §§8, 9. In some manuscripts the words ‘scilicet subductus’ (§8) till ‘18 horas’ (§9) have been omitted, intentionally or unintentionally, e.g. in the Bodleian MS. Rawlinson C. 160 (Woodbine's OD). But in other manuscripts and just in our best—e.g. in MS. Bodley 170 (see on this manuscript supra ch. VII, at II)—the text runs as printed above. Evidently the latter manuscripts give us the genuine Bractonian text, for the omitted words are absolutely necessary. In so far I agree with Woodbine. However, I think that in such a case it is misleading to speak of an ‘additio'; there is rather an ‘omissio’ For the details I may refer to Woodbine's edition. Unfortunately what is said in his introduction (1, 414) on this ‘additio’ is rather puzzling: He cites here the ‘additio’ as beginning with ‘quia sic subductus’ The reader who seeks for these words in his edition seeks in vain. The solution of the puzzle is: when Woodbine wrote his first volume, he had not yet constituted the text of his edition. Thus he cited the ‘additio’ according to the editio princeps. When he wrote his fourth volume, he realized that this text was faulty and (rightly) substituted another, unfortunately without admonishing the reader to correct the preliminary remark in the first volume.Google Scholar

⁸ A good example for the Germanic idea of the relativity of ownership; see Meyer, Herbert, art. ‘Eigentum’ in Joh. Hoops, Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde 1 (1911–13) 531.Google Scholar

⁹ Above ch. II sect. VGoogle Scholar

¹⁰ Cp. the text in the Note Book (supra ch. I n. 1) 3, 299: ‘Et sciendum quod est annus naturalis et artificialis, et est dies Solaris et dies lunaris et ex duobus diebus fit unus dies artificialis.'Google Scholar

¹¹ See above ch. II sect. II.Google Scholar

¹² See above ch. VII at II.Google Scholar

¹³ Here (and fol. 264^v) as well as in the Note Book the day containing 24 hours is called ‘dies artificialis’ in contrast to ‘dies naturalis’ containing 12 hours (6 a.m. till 6 p.m.). A similar terminology has Censorinus, De die natali c. 23: ‘Naturalis dies est tempus ab oriente sole ad solis occasum Civilis autem dies vocatur tempus, quod fit uno coeli circumactu, quo dies verus et nox continetur.’ The medieval computists contrariwise as a rule called the day containing 24 hours ‘dies naturalis', and the day containing 12 hours (6 a.m. till 6 p.m.) ‘dies artificialis’ See Grotefend, Zeitrechnung (supra ch. II n. 6) 1, 189.Google Scholar

^13a Cp. Bracton fol. 136^v: ‘recte autem loquendo’ etc.Google Scholar

¹⁴ See above ch. VII at V on the meaning of brackets in my text.Google Scholar

¹⁵ The same blunder occurs in the Note Book in the text given below §23; here the manuscript of the Note Book has ‘dies bissextilis’ instead of ‘annus bissextilis': see Maitland's edition 3, 301 n. 2.Google Scholar

^15a Ch. II sect. VI.Google Scholar

¹⁶ In Notker's Computus we read in the Munich MS. edited by Piper (supra ch. I no. 15): ‘Constat autem lunaris annus CCCLX〈V〉 diebus et VI horis. Quare hoc? Quia sol tanto spacio circuit celum eius, namque circuitus annus est’ Here also ‘lunaris’ is obviously either an interpolation or a scribal blunder instead of ‘solaris'Google Scholar

¹⁷ See above ch. II n. 2.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Ibid. sect. II.Google Scholar

¹⁹ It is only by the signa that the length of the natural year can be discerned. See e.g. the Computus of the 8th or 9th century (no. 11 of the list ch. I, supra) fol. 26: ‘De 12 enim signis bissextus oritur. In unoquoque signo sol moratur 30 diebus et 10 horis et dimidia; duodecies namque dimidiae horae faciunt horas 6 integras. Sic accrescit dies et nox in uno anno et in alio et tertio et usque ad quartum: haec est enim quarta pars diei, unde bissextus accrescit.'Google Scholar

²⁰ Ch. II sect. III.Google Scholar