DOCUMENT. — From the etymological meaning of “teaching” (from *doceo*, “that from which one learns, obtains proof”), the word *d.* has come to indicate any testimony (written, oral, monumental) of a fact, and particularly, to paraphrase Sickel’s definition, “a written attestation of a fact of a legal nature and content, drawn up according to certain principles by which it may command belief and have probative value”: in this sense it is also called “instrument,” and in the Middle Ages was designated by the generic terms *charta*, *litterae*, *scriptura*, etc. Its origin is to be sought in the ancient Roman *d.*, both in the testimonial form and in that of the chirograph and letter. The *d.* itself, apart from the historical or juridical value it may possess, is the object of a particular science called “diplomatics” (v.).
I. CLASSIFICATION
Since not all *d.* serve the same purpose, nor proceed from the same author, nor present themselves in a single form, diplomatics has had to proceed first of all to a classification of the *d.*, which varies according to the point of view from which the act is examined. A first distinction concerns the moment of the legal fact attested: thus there are *d.* of proof (*notitiae*) and *d.* of disposition (*chartae*), according as the legal action documented is already completed and valid prior to the drafting of the *d.*, or it is the *d.* itself that brings it to completion and validity. A second distinction is based on the nature of the act, which may be political, juridical, or administrative: the *d.* differs in this respect both in its wording and in its diplomatic characteristics, and one distinguishes precepts, privileges, diplomas, placets, letters, mandates, and the various types of *chartae* and memoranda (*venditionis*, *offensionis*, *conventionis*, *locationis*, *pignoris*, etc.). Finally, the most important distinction, which constitutes the first foundation of special diplomatics, is based on the authority from which the act emanates and divides the *d.* into two broad categories: public and private. Public *d.*, that is, those issued in public form by public authorities, in turn subdivide into ecclesiastical (*pontifical*, episcopal, etc.), sovereign (imperial, royal, princely, etc.), communal, and judicial. Pontifical *d.*, whose peculiar diplomatic characteristics begin to be distinguished at the end of the 8th century—the period to which the oldest originals preserved to us date—are divided into bulls (v.), briefs (v.), and *motu proprio* (v.). Episcopal *d.* often conform to the characteristics of pontifical *d.*, especially in the more important sees (Ravenna, Constance, Reims, etc.), or else imitate the forms of princely *d.*; at times, however, they appear without any chancery formalities. Sovereign *d.* are represented essentially by privileges, letters, and mandates; communal *d.* by *reformationes* (minutes of council meetings), statutes, *brevia ambaxiatorum* (drafts of preliminary agreements), *banni* (public notices), mandates, *licitari rectorum*; judicial *d.* by procedural acts and generally by all *d.* connected with judicial proceedings (*libelli*, mandates, summonses, depositions, placets). Private *d.* on the other hand are those concerning matters of private law, and are usually drawn up by a notary, though sometimes (as in the case of the chirograph [v.]) also by one or more contracting parties; they comprise a very great variety of acts, among which contracts of various kinds are especially important.II. GENESIS
The formation of the *d.* involves different persons acting at two chronologically or logically distinct moments: that of the *actio*, that is, the legal fact attested, and that of the *conscriptio*, or documentation. The persons absolutely necessary for the creation of the *d.* are the author, that is, the person who performs the action documented; the addressee, that is, the person to whom the *d.* is addressed; and the drafter (*rogatarius*), that is, the person who draws up the act at the request of the author or addressee. To the *actio* contribute: the request made to the author by the addressee (*petitio*); the recommendation of the request by an influential person (*intercessio*); the participation of certain persons whose intervention is required (*intervenientes*), their consent (*consentientes*), or even simply their testimony (*testes*). To the *conscriptio* belong: the order given by the sovereign to the chancery (*iussio*) or the mandate of the private individual to the notary (*rogatio*) to draw up the act; the drafting of the draft (*imbreviatura*); the final copy (*mundum*); the verification for chancery *d.* (*recognitio*), and finally the authentication (*completio*).
III. STRUCTURE
The *d.*, whatever its type, is divided into certain parts identified by particular formulae, which may appear in full or in part according to the period, nature, and authority from which the act emanates. Even their order may, within certain limits, vary, but here the typical sequence is indicated, which will make it possible to distinguish the various parts even when they are arranged differently. The fundamental subdivision of a *d.* is that which distinguishes protocol, text, and escatocol (also improperly called final protocol).1. The protocol is the ensemble of the initial formulae and includes: invocation, intitulatio, inscriptio, and salutation. The *invocatio* is a pious appeal to the deity and derives from the Christian custom of invoking divine aid before any action of a certain importance; it may be verbal, if expressed literally by certain formulae (*in nomine Domini*, *in nomine sanctae et individuae Trinitatis*, etc.), or monogrammatic (v. CHRISMON), and may also occur in both forms; it is completely absent from pontifical privileges from the time of Leo IX (1049–54) onward. The *intitulatio* consists in the mention of the name of the author accompanied by his titles and qualities; the *inscriptio* in the name, titles, and qualities of the addressee; the *salutatio* in an expression of greeting in pontifical *d.* (*salutem in Domino*; *salutem et apostolicam benedictionem*), and of grace in royal and imperial letters (*gratiam suam et omne bonum*, etc.): it is absent from other sovereign *d.* as well as from private ones. In privileges it is replaced by the formula of perpetuity (*in perpetuum*; *ad aeternam rei memoriam*).
2. The text constitutes the central part of the *d.*, that which gives the reason for the content of the act and therefore varies in extension and wording according to II. It is distinguished into arenga, publication, narration, disposition, sanction, corroboration.
The *arenga* (or *exordium*, or *proemium*, or *prologus*) is a rhetorical introduction in which general principles or dogmatic truths in some relation to the nature of the act documented are set forth: it is not essential and after the 12th century tends gradually to disappear, at least in less solemn *d.* The *publicatio* (or *promulgatio* or *notificatio*) is the formula that introduces the expository part of the *d.*, making it known (*notum sit omnibus*; *pateat omnibus*, etc.). The *narratio* (or *expositio*) consists in the recital of the circumstances that gave rise to the act; the *dispositio* in the description of the act itself, in its details of time, place, and person, and in its consequences: it constitutes the essential part of the *d.* from the point of view of historical criticism, whereas for diplomatic criticism it is of little interest. The *sanctio* comprises a set of expressions by which the legal character of the *d.* is consecrated and certain obligations are established to guarantee the observance of the legal act. The *corroboratio* indicates the formalities followed for the validation of the *d.*
3. The escatocol includes dating, validation, and subscription.
(v.) Consenting subscriptions are rare in papal documents, since the authority issuing such a power does not require witness validation; however, in privileges, subscriptions by cardinals appear very rarely until Paschal II and with a certain regularity only from Innocent II (1130–43), though these are almost never autograph. Finally, the participation of chancery officials is evident in privileges through the autograph subscription of the drafter of the document, the design of the "rota" and the "bene-valete," and the mention of the datary; in briefs, through the subscription of the secretary.
The characteristics listed are found in full only in the originals; diplomatics, however, do not neglect the study of copies (authentic or otherwise), nor even of forgeries. It also takes into account, as does historical criticism, the drafts, cartularies, and registers (v.).
IV. ILLUSTRATION
Documents do not normally present illustrations, and only in certain acts, drawn up with particular solemnity, do the chancery embellishments around the initials or various "signa" acquire an ornamental character. Nevertheless, there are examples of illuminated documents with genuine illustrations, but these pertain to private documents, for which the author sought to achieve an aesthetic effect as well.V. THE DOCUMENT IN CANON LAW
A document may be used in legal proceedings as a means of proof.However, for a document to serve as a means of proof, it must contain the subscription of its author, since only with such a subscription does it assume the nature of a certified instrument. The probative value of the document, that is, its efficacy as a means of proof, is strictly dependent on the reliability of its author.
With regard to legal proceedings, various distinctions can be made among documents. There are, in fact, instruments drawn up by the parties to the case and those coming from third parties; the latter are valid as evidence only insofar as they attest to a legal act or a fact of the third party relevant to the decision. Furthermore, instruments are classified as originals or copies, depending on whether they proceed directly from their author or are transcribed from the original; as true or false, depending on whether they contain the truth or falsehood; as authentic or spurious, depending on whether they actually originate from the author to whom they are attributed; as defective or intact, depending on whether they have been altered by interpolation, erasure, or correction; as valid or invalid, depending on whether they have been drawn up in compliance with the legal norms governing the conditions required for their full legal validity; and as public or private, depending on whether they have been received by a public official or instead emanate from a private individual (or even from a public official outside the exercise of his functions). This last distinction is the most important in procedural law. As a rule, the lex fori—the law in force in the place where the trial is held—governs the probative value of documents; however, the form of the document is regulated by the law of the place where the document was drawn up.
The most significant public documents in canon law are listed in can. 1813 § 1 of the CIC (acts of the Pope, of the Roman Curia, and of Ordinaries; instruments of ecclesiastical notaries; judicial acts; inscriptions or attestations of Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Orders, religious profession, Marriage, and death).
From the standpoint of the documentary assessment in legal proceedings, the following principles must be firmly upheld: 1) that public documents are presumed genuine until proven otherwise (can. 1814); 2) that such documents provide full proof of their direct and principal content (can. 1816), whereas elements extraneous to this content have only indicatory value; 3) that both of these presumptions, based on the fact that public documents are drawn up through the work of a public official and are thus presumed to correspond to the truth regarding what is attested to have occurred in the presence of the public official, may be overturned by judicial impugnation of the document (querela de falso).
Private documents, by contrast, have probative value equal only to that of extrajudicial confessions (v. CONFESSION) if they have been acknowledged by the party against whom they are used in court or by the judge (can. 1817), or if the judge has verified their authenticity (can. 1817). Moreover, unlike public documents, private documents do not have efficacy with regard to third parties outside the proceedings.
Both public and private documents may be submitted in court by the interested party—either incidentally, at any stage or level of the case, or in a separate proceeding—for recognition or impugnation (can. 1816).
The querela de falso is properly the legal means granted to obtain a declaration of the falsity of a document, whether public or private (v. FALSO; QUERELA).
Finally, regarding the production of documents in legal proceedings, the following principles are in force in the process