Description:
<jats:p>In Paris the canonists strived at interpreting the canons on <jats:italic>praescriptio</jats:italic> in such a way that they concurred with Roman law. A clear and early example provides the <jats:italic>summa Parisiensis</jats:italic>, written in the late 1160s. Stephen of Tournai and other jurists followed its example modelling the <jats:italic>praescriptio</jats:italic> <jats:italic>canonica</jats:italic> after the <jats:italic>longissimi temporis praescriptio</jats:italic> in the Corpus iuris. In this line of thought <jats:italic>praescriptio</jats:italic> firstly denotes a defence of limitation. In Bologna, by requiring continuous good faith and a title, Rufin had modelled the <jats:italic>praescriptio canonica</jats:italic> after the Roman-law <jats:italic>longi temporis praescriptio</jats:italic>, which had both liberative and acquisitive effect. The author of <jats:italic>Animal est substantia</jats:italic>, the last major work of the Parisian school, seems to have aimed at harmonizing both interpretations, but the decretal <jats:italic>Quoniam omne</jats:italic> (4Conc. Lat. c.41; X 2.26.20) superseded his solution. </jats:p>