In this famous and well-regulated city, Dürer enjoyed an extraordinary position. There was no other craftsman or artist that shared his status and fame. He had a very close relation to the Council. In fact, one of his closest friends, Willibald Pirkheimer was elected to the Council in 1498. At the time when the disputes arise, Dürer is famous for his art and his craftmanship, but also someone with close connections to the ones ruling the city.47 Taking into consideration the fact that Nuremberg had no guilds, Dürer had to turn to the Council to raise his legal claims. As discussed above, “free artists”, were not as strictly regulated by the Council as craftsmen. As a result, artists were able to set their own prices and quality standards. On the other hand, the defendant was a“foreigner” and thus it seems that the defendant’s actions would be subject to further scrutiny and stricter requirements. It is not clear whether the procedure started as a result of a public seizure by the Council’s investigators. It could be Dürer that initiated the process with a formal complaint. Private parties were given from some days to a month during which they could present their complaints without the interference of the Pfänder.48 The Council would hear the case, while the whole process would be considered by a group of non-lawyers. The process included reviewing legal briefs and expert memoranda, while lawyers were employed to assist the Council and draft legal documents, the decisions were reached by non-laymen. While Nuremberg had its own set of local regulations, Justinian Roman law was of fundamental importance. At the time of Dürer’s birth, several German cities had begun the process of codifying local law, based on Roman doctrine. Nuremberg played a predominant role in this process of “Romanization” revising its legal code in 1479. The first publication of a printed municipal code in Germany was a project led by Anton Koberger, Dürer’s godfather. In fact, this legal reform focused predominantly on preventing imitation and forgery of goods.49 In terms of the actual Roman law provisions that were applicable in a case as the one litigated by Dürer would be, that onfalsum, “that which in reality does not exist, but is asserted as true”. TheLex Cornelia deFalsis by Sulla, is an ancient penal law provision providing that any 98 disruptive technology and materiality as vessels of authorship The legal and procedural framework of the dispute
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=