LEGAL BROCARDS. – Some scholars believe that the expression *brocardus* derives from a corruption of the word *burcardus*, a term by which the *Decretum* of BURCHARD of Worms would have been denominated metonymically, otherwise known as the *Collectanea canonum* or *Liber decretorum*.
The purpose of the legal literary genre of the *brocarda* was to condense into maxims the general principles of law and, at the same time, to provide the framework and material for a logical elaboration of the law.
The general principles, originally derived as arguments (*argumentum*, *nota*, *notabilia*) from individual texts and annotated in the margins of these texts, were subsequently extracted and furnished with supporting texts, and juxtaposed with contrary general principles, also presented with the texts supporting them. Regularly, logical connections (often with *distinctiones*) were established between opposing principles, and the reasons for their reconciliation (*solutiones contrariorum*) were deduced. In this way, a logical system of general principles was achieved, which formed the basis of the juridical dialectic of the time. A typical and elaborate example of this complex genre of legal literature in the field of civil law is provided at the end of the 12th century by the glossator Pillius of Medicina in his work entitled *Libellus disputatorius*. He also calls the entire collection of *quaestiones* *Brocarda*, and each individual part of it a *quaestio*. However, in this context he uses the term *brocarda* not in the technical sense of the literary genre of *generalia*, but in the broader sense of a discussion *pro* and *contra*, which he describes as follows: «Brocardica materia dicitur quae est contrariarum opinionum rationibus involuta».
Similar to that of Pillius and slightly later is the collection compiled by the glossator Otto, furnished with solutions by AZO, and commonly attributed to the latter under the title *Brocardica domini Azonis*.
As regards the field of canon law, if the genre of the *brocarda* is understood in the sense established by Pillius, it would seem appropriate to consider the *Concordia discordantium canonum* written by GRATIAN (v.) in the mid-12th century as the extended realization of the genre of the *brocarda*, where Gratian’s *dicta* would constitute the *solutiones* of the *contraria*.
On the other hand, what is contained in the *Opusculum de distinctionibus in canonum interpretatione adhibendis ad usum magistrorum, advocatorum et iudicium*, compiled by PETRUS BLESENSIS in France around 1180, would not constitute true *brocarda* (contrary to the opinion of Van Hove), since this work does not fully embody the genre of the *brocarda* in the aforementioned sense. KUTTNER excludes the possibility of speaking of true canonical *brocarda* for the period of the decretists. The first collections of canonical *brocarda* would be attributed to the decretalists. Two of these have come down to us. The first is represented by the *Generalia* of RICHARDUS de LACY (Anglicus), elaborated on the basis of the *Compilatio I°*, around 1198. This is followed by the *Brocarda* of DAMASUS, written between 1210 and 1215 on the first three compilations of the decretals and reworked by BARTHOLOMAEUS BRIXIENSIS in 1234, with the addition of new textual references, while the number of 127 rules established by Damasus remained fixed. The same work was subsequently reworked after the Gregorian decretals.