Juris feudalis conclusiones aliquot miscellaneae, quas, divina asspirante clementia, in celeberrima Basiliensi Academia pro summo in utroque jure gradu obtinendo

These are the words of Chapter 1, in which it is admitted regarding feudal causes, and all follow it there; Baron defends these in Book 4 on Benefits, Chapter 7; Baldus in the prelude to feudal law, question 2; Afflictus in the same place, question 4; and many others, whom you may see in my Synopsis, question 1, chapter 1, although it is quite debatable and somewhat crude. Whence Wesenbecius rejects it in Chapter 1 in his feudal tract, and Hotoman in his feudal disputes, chapter 4.

A feudum fief/feudal estate is a benefit that is given to someone out of benevolence in such a way that the property of the immovable object remains with the giver, but the usufruct right to use and profit from another's property of it passes to the receiver in such a way that it pertains in perpetuity to him and his male and female heirs, if it was so enacted, to the end that he and his heirs serve the lord faithfully, whether the service is determined or not.

II.

This is the common opinion received, the copious authorities for which you may see if you wish, by adding to my synopsis, chapter 2, question 24, and chapter 7, questions 40 and 41, where those cited for each side agree on this, with a few exceptions I believe.

I call it a hereditary feudum fief in which he who wishes to succeed must regularly be the heir, and therefore it must be said that it is received for himself and his heirs as hereditary, but this is not to be understood as if a feudum of this kind had anything of the hereditary in its essence, or as if it were other hereditary property; rather, we use this word (hereditary) only to signify that those wishing to succeed in it cannot take it otherwise than if they are the heirs in the inheritance of the deceased vasallus vassal. Although very many argue that this feudum is deferred as some hereditary thing, and therefore not even the agnati relatives on the father's side could separate it from the inheritance and have it as a priority once the inheritance has been entered, which I could even probably defend by debating; whence it appears that this matter is so controversial that it would need one or another imperial decision.

All feel this way, in the cited chapter 7, questions 40 and 41; many agree, cited in question 24 in letter D. And Iserninus intends this in chapter 1 on the alienation of a paternal feudum, when he says a hereditary feudum is owed to the descendants also by agreement. And Sylvanus on the recognition of a feudum, question 79, number 16. See in my Synopsis chapter 9, question 101, in letter C.

III.

A feudum simply received and conceded by saying, "I give you the Tusculan estate as a feudum," or if nothing is known about agreements, whether this is similar to a feudum by agreement and provision, that is, received for himself and his sons: