Medieval urban communities carved out their distinctive judicial and administrative outlines from the block of rights and privileges held by their lords. Whatever its size, economic importance, or de facto sphere of collective action, a town possessed no natural right to judge its residents, regulate its market, levy taxes, build mills or ovens, oversee municipal construction, or select representatives to direct its affairs: sovereign or seigniorial authority had to relinquish these prerogatives, or at least formally acknowledge a fait accompli. The form this transfer assumed, the timing of municipal grants, and the extent of liberties conferred on individual towns varied tremendously, yet charters of urban privileges were always highly prized and frequently reaffirmed. The contents of these documents had a lasting impact on regulating not only the subsequent relationship between townspeople and their lords but also in establishing balances within urban communities themselves.

The latter point needs special emphasis, for it can easily be overlooked due to the laconic nature of the sources and the assumption that the bestowal of privileges directly reflects a singleness of purpose espoused by the community. The diplomatic nature of municipal charters makes it tempting to see in them a simple tug-of-war between the community as a whole and its lord or lords. In a reductionist dialectic, the lord who possessed rights in the town typically conceded all or part of them “freely” or “benevolently” to the entire faceless body of townspeople, the universitas, populus, or comune.