Definition
Diversite des Courts (also rendered Diversité des Courts) is the title of an anonymous medieval English legal treatise written in Law French, cataloguing the various courts of England and describing their respective jurisdictions. The work is believed to have been composed during the reign of Edward III (1327–1377), though its authorship remains uncertain. It has been attributed by some scholars to Sir Anthony Fitzherbert, a judge and legal writer of the early sixteenth century, though this attribution is not universally accepted. The treatise was first printed in 1525 and issued again in 1534, placing it among the early products of English legal printing. As a work of jurisdiction rather than doctrine, it functions as a descriptive survey of the court structure of medieval England rather than as a treatise on substantive law or procedure.
Common Language
The title is Law French, not modern French or English. Diversité means diversity or variety; des courts means of courts. Taken together, the title translates roughly as "the variety of courts" or "the diversity of courts." Researchers unfamiliar with Law French may encounter the title in abbreviated or anglicized forms in bibliographic references. The word "diversite" in this context carries the sense of differentiation or distinction among things of the same general class — here, the different tribunals of the English legal system — rather than the modern English connotation of demographic or social variety.
Why It Matters in Research
Researchers working in English legal history, court jurisdiction, or the bibliography of early legal literature will encounter references to Diversite des Courts in secondary sources discussing the medieval and early modern English court system. Several points are essential to research navigation.
First, authorship is genuinely contested. The attribution to Fitzherbert appears in some catalog entries and secondary sources, but the treatise predates Fitzherbert's known productive period, and attribution rests on inference rather than direct evidence. Researchers should not treat "Fitzherbert" as a reliable author tag when searching bibliographic databases.
Second, the two print editions (1525 and 1534) exist as distinct bibliographic items. Early English legal bibliography distinguishes them, and researchers working with primary sources should identify which edition is being cited in any given secondary source, as textual differences between early print editions of Law French texts can be significant.
Third, the treatise is a work of jurisdictional description, not doctrine or pleading. Its value to researchers lies in understanding how contemporaries conceptualized the organization of the court system — which courts existed, what matters they took, and how they were distinguished from one another. It is not a source for procedural rules or substantive law.
Fourth, the work is written entirely in Law French, the legal lingua franca of English courts from the Norman Conquest through the seventeenth century. Researchers without Law French reading ability will need to rely on later translations, paraphrases, or secondary commentary. None of the standard historical dictionaries in the Law Mind corpus provide a translation.
Historical Dictionary Support
The three historical dictionaries in the Law Mind corpus — Black's (1st ed.), Black's (2nd ed.), and Burrill's — are in near-complete textual agreement on this entry. All three identify the treatise as dealing with courts and their jurisdiction, place its composition in the reign of Edward III, note the attribution to Fitzherbert, and record the 1525 and 1534 print dates. The entries diverge only in the secondary citations provided.
Burrill's entry is the most useful to the researcher because it supplies four specific secondary references: Crabb's History of English Law (pp. 330, 483), Blackstone's Commentaries (vol. 3, p. 53), Reeves' History of English Law (vol. 3, p. 152 and vol. 4, p. 420), and Stephen's Commentaries (vol. 3, p. 414). These citations allow researchers to trace how nineteenth-century legal historians treated the treatise as a source for the history of English court organization. Black's entries cite only Crabb, making Burrill's the richer bibliographic starting point.
None of the three dictionaries address the authorship question with any critical depth, nor do they describe the treatise's contents beyond its general subject. The observation that authorship is only "supposed" and "attributed" is present in all three but is not developed. Researchers should look to Reeves and Crabb for more sustained engagement with the text's history.
Jurisdictional Note
This is a work of English legal history with no direct application to modern jurisdictions. Its relevance is confined to historical research on the medieval and early modern English court system and to the bibliography of early English legal literature. It has no counterpart or equivalent in Scottish, Irish, or American legal traditions.