# Fiat large, what does it mean?



## Brisavoine

I'm trying to find the meaning of _fiat large_. This phrase appears in a donation registered by a notary in the region of Valencia, Spain, in the 17th century. Donations, wedding agreements, transactions, etc. registered by notaries in the region of Valencia in the 17th century often end like this:
"Fiat large etc.
Actum Valencie ut supra."

I understand _actum Valencie ut supra_, but I just don't get the meaning of _fiat large_ ("let it be made abundantly" makes little sense to me). Does anyone have a clue?

PS: If this may further help, one transaction ends with "_Fiat largo modo_" instead of "_Fiat large_". Another one ends with "_Fiat exa_" (where the "a" is a superscript), which I guess is the abbreviation of "_Fiat executoria_". But "_Fiat large_" is by far the most frequent phrase found at the end of the transactions in those notary books.


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings

I wish I could help you more here. In the light of _fiat largo modo_ this is clearly a formulaic legal _idea_, though not a completely _set verbal formula_ as would be for example _sine die_ or _post mortem_ in modern English or Scots law.

After hunting through various dusty tomes about legal Latinity, I can at least assure you that this is post-classical, and not widely recognised by handbooks of mediaeval Roman Law.

Two suggestions. First, it may reflect a local Spanish/Valencian code or formula; what if any common-law documents exist (any in the vernacular?) from the period and the area that might illuminate the question?

Secondly, can you date the documents in which this phrase appears, and order them chronologically? This might just conceivably enable a trace to a particular notary or a particular school of legal thought in the very specific context about which you are asking.


----------



## Kevin Beach

Assuming that you are reading the notary's protocol, or register of acts done by and before him, then I suggest that it may be intended to distinguish between acts in private form and acts in public form. Can _large_ in Latin be translated as "at large" in English? If so, it would tend to suggest that it is a record of a public form document.


----------



## Brisavoine

After looking around everywhere online, I've finally found an explanation of _fiat large_, but the explanation is in Latin, and I don't quite understand it.

Here is what I've found: "Si in nota adsit clausula _Fiat large_ ad consilium peritorum, instrumentum extrahi potest cum confrontationibus."

This comes from a book called _Tractatus theorico-practicus de vera identidate legali_ (published in Saragossa in 1753), in chapter XI _De Identitate Rei Immobilis_.

A fuller explanation can be found here: http://i52.tinypic.com/xpzyv9.png


----------



## Kevin Beach

Looking at the fascinating extract in your link, the precise wording is "_...cum in Nota, adest clausula Fiat large asserit ad consilium peritorum instrumentum extrahi posse cum confrontationibus_", which I think can be translated as "... When in the note there is the small clause "Let it be at large" it asserts [= signifies] to the Council of Experts that the instrument can be extracted with [?confrontation?]

"Confrontationibus" doesn't appear in either of my classical Latin dictionaries. It appears earlier in the passage in another phrase, with a Spanish translation which includes the word "Confrontados"; I wonder whether it a back-translation from Spanish to Latin. My modern Spanish dictionary translates "confrontados" as we would expect, i.e. as "confrontation".

I tried the whole phrase "...cum in Nota, adest clausula Fiat large asserit ad consilium peritorum instrumentum extrahi posse cum confrontationibus" in the Google online translator and it translated "cum confrontationibus" as "with*out* confrontation", which I find odd as "without" seems to mean the opposite of "cum". However, it would make sense in the context. I go back to my idea that it is an extract from a notary's protocol. I now think that _Fiat large_ means that the document (i.e. "instrument") to which it refers can be copied (i.e. "extracted") from the protocol without argument, i.e. that it is a document in the public realm.

In the Civil Law countries (of which Spain is one), the job of a notary is to produce documents that effect and create a permanent record of transactions and dealing between parties. Many documents, such as those relating to land, are in what is known as the "public form". The notary keeps the original and has to produce copies to anybody who has an interest in seeing it. Fiat large = Let it be at large.

I don't know the significance of the Council of Experts. Maybe it is a local body that adjudicates or opines about the validity and effect of legal documents, in place of a court.


----------



## Scholiast

Well done Kevin - you beat me to it.

From the entire context it is clear that _confrontatio_ has a legal-technical connotation (it occurred to me too that this might be a "back-translation"), but I am also out of my depth here.

On the "Council" or "Panel of Experts": I have a suspicion that the phrase _ad Consilium Peritorum_ (where one might have expected _Concilium_ rather than _Consilium_ - though Iustinian appears to use the latter in regulations for manumission (_Institutes_ 1.6.4) may be grammatically dependent on _extrahi posse_ rather than to be taken in relation to _asserit_, i.e., that the the particular legal instrument may be "extracted" (or "cited") *before, or in the presence of*, the said Panel, rather than that the clause *asserts to the Panel* &c.

Incidentally, I am not wholly convinced that Google's online translator is to be relied on in such a technical context as this.


----------



## CapnPrep

Kevin Beach said:


> I tried the whole phrase "...cum in Nota, adest clausula Fiat large asserit ad consilium peritorum instrumentum extrahi posse cum confrontationibus" in the Google online translator and it translated "cum confrontationibus" as "with*out* confrontation", which I find odd as "without" seems to mean the opposite of "cum". However, it would make sense in the context.


I think Scholiast may have been hinting at this, but let it be stated cleary: _cum_ cannot be translated as "without", no matter what Google says.

It is clear from the sources that Brisavoine provided (here and on another site) that a _confrontatio_ is a document, not an abstract concept corresponding to our "confrontation" or "argument". The following definitions give a better idea of the nature of this document, which serves to establish the identity of a property:
Confrontatio
Confrontación (in Spanish! phew! )

This particular use of the word appears to be specific to Spanish law, but it is a simple extension of the medieval Latin _confrontatio_ "border, boundary, adjoining areas".

I don't have anything to add to what has already been said about _Fiat large_…


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings once again

Thanks CapnPrep.

I see from the pages CapnPrep cites from Molina's _Repertorium_ that a _confrontatio_ is indeed a document describing the properties to be disposed by sale or inheritance. This makes the sense of _extrahi cum confrontationibus_ much clearer: the _instrumentum_ is a contract of sale, which together with the _confrontationes_ may be presented to the arbitration of the _consilium peritorum_ for approval.

The technical term in legal English (though this would of course be British - nay, specifically _English_ legal English (Scots law is materially different in matters of property)) - is "schedule", which is a document normally appended to a contract, specifying the particulars at issue.

As it happens, however, Scots law is based, like Spanish, on Roman Civil Law principles, so I have consulted a Scottish lawyer-friend about this, but "Confrontation" is not as far as he knows used in this sense ("schedule" is used there too), so this would appear to be restricted to Spanish legal discourse of the period.

This all appears to be confirmed by the Spanish source that CapnPrep cites. Now my knowledge of Spanish is rather rudimentary, but from it I glean that the presence or affirmation of jurisconsults is required to authorise and witness that the transaction has been lawfully carried out. This would be in conformity with some other matters of Roman Law anyway, so these may be the panellists in the _Consilium Peritorum_.


----------



## Brisavoine

All these explanations are very interesting, but I'm wondering whether we're not following a wrong lead.

I've finally found a clear modern-day explanation of "Fiat large" in a paper published by a scholar at the University of Valencia. The paper is about Valencian notaries in the 15th century. The scholar studied registers kept in the royal archives of the kingdom of Valencia containing _cartae notariae_, literally "notary charters", which are licences granted to the people appointed public notaries by the king. The scholar explains that only the first _carta notarie_ in each register is written in full extent, and the other _cartae notariae_ that follow are highly abbreviated, containing lots of "etc." According to the scholar, "Fiat large" is written at the end of each _carta_ and means that when the _carta_ is issued ("expedida" in Spanish, which is maybe the sense of "extrahi" in the Latin text above?), the text has to be copied in full extent.

The scholar doesn't give any reference for his explanation of "Fiat large", and I could find no confirmation online that whe he wrote is true. I also don't quite see the link with our "confrontationes". Any ideas?

PS: In France "confrontation" was also a legal term used by notaries (I don't know whether it's still used by today's notaries; I guess it became unnecessary after Napoleon created the cadaster, plots of land behind now identified by a number in the cadaster registry and cadaster map). For example in this sale of land from 1711 that I found in the archives of a notary in southern France the piece of land that is sold is identified like this: "une pièce de terre [...] confrontant du levant et couchant terre d'Antoine Laurentie, de Rouchy,  midi bois des héritiers d'Arnaud Pellet, septentrion terre de Jean Bonnemort, de Laborie, avec ses autres confrontations si de plus vraies il y en a, et avec ses droits d'entrée, issues, servitudes et appartenances."


----------



## CapnPrep

Brisavoine said:


> "une pièce de terre [...] confrontant du levant et couchant terre d'Antoine Laurentie, de Rouchy,  midi bois des héritiers d'Arnaud Pellet, septentrion terre de Jean Bonnemort, de Laborie, avec ses autres confrontations si de plus vraies il y en a, et avec ses droits d'entrée, issues, servitudes et appartenances."


In this case, it doesn't sound like _confrontations_ refers to documents attached to the act.

Anyway, as you said, we may be focusing too much on the _confrontationes_ and losing sight of the original question. In other documents, one can find longer versions of the _Fiat large_ clause:


Fiat large cum omnibus clausulis pro ut in similibus
Fiat large cum clausulis necessariis
Fiat large cum omnibus clausulis et cautelis in talibus fieri solitis
Fiat large con todas las cláusulas necesarias y en semejantes actos poner acostumbradas
I have the impression that it just means something like "Let's consider that the usual bla-bla has been inserted here".


----------

