Tabula Picta: Painting and Writing in Medieval Law

Conclusion

Conclusion To order the interpretations, let us return first to the Summae, which were elaborated between the second third of the twelfth century and the beginning of the thirteenth century. Under Placentin’s construction, the accessio subsumes the specificatio. The main split is between things that are separate, always discussed in terms of “birth” and for which he uses the verb accedere, and things that are continuous in the spatial sense, but deprived of birth, for which he uses cedere. Birth designates fruits of the womb, islands , species—among which painting under certain conditions—whereas accessio continua includes seeds and plants of another that grow on my field and, generally, all that is ruled by the principle superficies solo cedit—among which writing; things joined, inset, and encased; alluvio as an imperceptible increase; and construction timber. This classification may appear paradoxical if one considers it should be governed by a conception of birth dominated by a nature that gives life to plants, trees, and wheat, in the same way it gives life to animals and humans. However, for Placentin, birth is defined by separation, and in that sense, a tree cannot legally be born because it lives only if its roots anchor it into the soil from which it gets nourishment. Yet to list painting among the things that are born and writing among those that are not, did introduce a new element previously foreign to this principle of classification. At issue was the image as representation and also as presence; and one could evoke here what Jean-Claude Bonne calls the thingness of the image (“choséité de l’image”), that is, not an evocation of the sacred via the iconic or stylistic quality of the images, but the immanence of the sacred in the “substantiveness” of the image.1 For Azo, who organizes his discussion around accessio based on the principle of the agent (God, Man, both), the distinction between what was born separate and what grows or is added to a continuity concerns only the accessio generated by God, that is, the opposition between fruits of the womb and alluvio. What really matters is his way of discarding the value of things from the moment God intervenes as a sole or partial agent: as in the first cat- 98 Conclusion egory (fruits of the womb and alluvio), in the third (where the agents are God and Man) regarding plants and wheat, as well as trees, value does not permit allocation of the ownership of the things. Only the second category—that of accessiones, the agent of which is human intervention (ferruminatio, adplumbatio , tignum iunctum, insertis, intextis, inclusis, aedificatio, pictura, and scriptura)— permits a rationale based on value. If the principle of agency is not systematically retained, the implicit value structure thus proposed will, on the contrary, dominate. The specificatio as one criterion influencing the discussion on painting emerged in the schools of the French Midi. Placentin mentions this, and so does the Summa Iustitiani est in hoc opere. The Provençal schools that developed during the twelfth century exhibit an interest for the liberal arts that Azo and Accursio criticize, as they extol the self-sufficiency of the law. Azo’s acerbic discourse on Placentin’s “fables” regarding the creation of the new species are reminiscent of his scorn for Bernando Dorna’s flowery speeches, a front for his attacks against the Montpellier master.2 Odofredo—who, like his master Iacopo Balduini, stands for an alternative to Azo’s and Accursio’s scholastic currents, which were dominant in Bologna—exploits the same theme. The first generation of Orléans masters will also attend Balduini’s school, which explains the prestige of Odofredo’s lectura among Orleans scholars. The use of the specificatio argument can thus be explained as a school-specific phenomenon of little following, because it conflicted with the “mainstream” of Bologna authors, who associated painting with accessio only. From the twelfth century, the criterion of value—which the Romans accepted for painting only—finds support for writing as well. However, this argument, disseminated during the thirteenth and the beginning of the fourteenth centuries , is refuted by Bartolo. Even though he was not always followed, the recognition of his work thus signals a return to the primary rationale under which painting and writing must abide by the rule superficies solo cedit. According to Bartolo, the tabula picta must remain closer to the trees and sowed plants, and to river alluvium—as occupied area—than to “artificial...