Itinera Fiduciae.

A person may hold property for a variety of purposes. The most common situation is that he wants to use and enjoy it for his own benefit. But he may also have agreed to administer the property either for the benefit of someone else or to further some particular purpose. Thus, in a broad and untechnical sense of the word, he may hold it "in trust". This kind of arrangement has been resorted to for many different reasons, both legitimate and illegitimate. From very early on, European legal systems have been faced with the need to establish rules and, eventually, institutions to deal with the resulting legal problems. Fiducia, fideicommissum, Treuhand, foundation, executorship and, of course, the trust: they all provided, at some time or other and in some place or other, the legal framework that was required.

The present volume attempts to present a comparative historical analysis of these devices. It seeks to trace the paths of the idea of "holding for others" or of holding property in a fiduciary capacity: itinera fiduciae. And it comes to the conclusion that historical connections can be drawn between the English trust and the Continental legal tradition. The common features and the common sources evident on both sides of the Channel mean that no wall of incomprehension separated the English trust from analogous institutions on the Continent. On this account, Otto von Gierke's often quoted remark to F. W. Maitland ("I do not understand your law of trusts") gives a misleading impression. If, as seems to be happening today, modern European law incorporates the trust, there is much to suggest that it will be building upon historical foundations.

Legal scholars from every nation are usually guided by the formations of their own legal system and, if they do dare to cross boundaries, by the two big legal »families«: the continental European and the Anglo-American legal system. These two legal systems are usually treated as systems that isolated themselves and have separate historical developments. The goal of the CSC is to correct this skewed view. On the one hand, each of the two legal systems never formed a monolithic unit: one only has to bear in mind the differences between the German and the French legal system or the fact that US Law is drifting away from English Common Law. On the other hand, the model of two isolated legal systems has proven to be fragile and antiquated: the mutual influence and common features are forces that have shaped the legal development substantially on both sides. It is also due to the research results published so far in the CSC, that these notions have been corrected. It is the intent of the CSC, which is kindly sponsored by the Gerda Henkel Foundation, to further bridge the gap between the two legal systems.