Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T09:20:48.617Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Anglo-Norman Canonists of the Twelfth Century: An Introductory Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 August 2017

Stephan Kuttner  and
Eleanor Rathbone
Stephan Kuttner
Affiliation:
The Catholic University of America and Palmer, Mass
Eleanor Rathbone
Affiliation:
The Catholic University of America and Palmer, Mass
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Among the various aspects of the operation of canon law in medieval England, the history of the Anglo-Norman school of canonists which flourished in the late twelfth and the early thirteenth centuries remains largely unexplored. Modern historians have frequently emphasized, to be sure, the eager interest which English churchmen of the twelfth century took in problems and issues of canon law; and it can now be considered an established fact that the English Church throughout this period was well abreast of the developments which everywhere resulted from the growing centralization of ecclesiastical procedure, from the work of Gratian and his school, and from the ever-increasing number of authoritative responses and appellate decisions rendered by the popes in their decretal letters. The importance of the system of delegate jurisdiction in the cases referred back by Rome to the country of origin has been noted, and so has the conspicuous number of twelfth-century English collections of decretals, which testifies to a particular zeal and tradition, among Anglo-Norman canonists, in supplementing Gratian's work by records of the new papal law. The problem, also, of the influence exercised by Roman and canon law on the early development of the Common Law is being discussed with growing interest among students of English legal and constitutional history.

Type
Articles
Information
Traditio , Volume 7 , 1951 , pp. 279 - 358
Copyright
Copyright © 1951 by Fordham University Press 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 As Barraclough, G., English Historical Review 53 (1938) 492–5 (book review), and Cheney, M. Mrs., ‘The Compromise of Avranches of 1172 and the Spread of Canon Law in England,’ ibid. 56 (1941) 177-97, have shown, it can no longer be maintained that the flow of decretals to England began after 1172 only and that the English Church, up till then, lagged behind in the full knowledge and practice of canon law, as was held by Brooke, Z. N., ‘The Effect of Becket's Murder on Papal Authority in England,’ Cambridge Historical Journal 2 (1926–8) 213-28; The English Church and the Papacy (Cambridge 1931) 213f. But aside from this point, the late Dr. Brooke's work remains fundamental in many respects; it definitely laid to rest the old controversy on the authority of the common law of the Church in England. — Cf. further Cheney, C. R., ‘Legislation of the Medieval English Church,’ Engl. Hist. Rev. 50 (1935) 193-224, 385-417; Foreville, Raymonde, L'église et la royauté en Angleterre sous Henri II Plantagenet (Paris 1943) 19f., 389ff.Google Scholar

2 Maitland, F. W., Roman Canon Law in the Church of England (London 1898) 122–31; Pollock, and Maitland, , The History of English Law before the Time of Edward I (2nd ed. Cambridge 1898) I, 115; Thorne, S. E., ‘Le droit canonique en Angleterre,’ Revue historique de droit français et étranger 4 13 (1934) 499-513; Morey, Dom A., Bartholomew of Exeter, Bishop and Canonist (Cambridge 1937) 44ff.; and the authors cited above. The enormous growth of delegate jurisdiction was a general, not a specifically English development of the twelfth century, cf. Barraclough, , loc. cit. 494 n.3.Google Scholar

3 References below, ch. I.Google Scholar

4 Powicke, F. M., Henry III and the Lord Edward (Oxford 1947) I, 30–50; Ways of Medieval Life and Thought (London 1950) 114-212, esp. 119, 128f., 146.; Plucknett, T F. T, ‘The Relation between Roman Law and English Common Law***,’ University of Toronto Law Journal 3 (1939–40) 24ff., esp. 30-6; Richardson, H. G. and Sayles, G. O., Select Cases of Procedure without Writ under Henry III (Selden Soc. 60; London 1941) lix ff., cix ff.; Post, G., ‘Plena Potestas and Consent in Medieval Assemblies,’ Traditio 1 (1943) 355-408. Renewed interest in civilian and canonistic influences on Bracton, stimulated by the late Dr. Kantorowicz's controversial book, Bractonian Problems (Glasgow 1941), is witnessed by a number of important studies, especially of Dr. Schulz, Mr. Richardson, and Professor Post; cf. articles listed in the latter's study on ‘quod omnes tangit,’ Traditio 4 (1946) 197 n.2 and 216 n.96; Richardson, , ‘Studies in Bracton,’ ibid. 6 (1948) 61-104.Google Scholar

5 The plan of the present paper was outlined when the co-authors first met early in 1947 and decided to pool the results of their research, some of which had been stated by both authors independently in unpublished lectures since 1938. For various reasons this article, originally designed to appear in 1948, could only recently be made ready for publication.Google Scholar

1 Cf. Cheney, C. R., English Bishops' Chanceries 1100–1250 (Manchester 1950) for the careers of some of these clerks. The question will be discussed in detail by E. Rathbone in or forthcoming book, English Cathedrals and the Schools in the Twelfth Century, shortly *** be published by the Warburg Institute.Google Scholar

2 Chronicon monasterii de Bello (ed. Brewer, J. S., Anglia Christiana Soc.; London ***846) 173.Google Scholar

3 Cf. the lists of books of individual monks, e.g., in James, M. R., The Ancient Libraries Canterbury and Dover (Cambridge 1903) 67ff.Google Scholar

4 On Pillius and Lotharius as attorneys for the monks in the first, and Hugolinus of Segni (the future Gregory IX) in the final stage of their suit against the archbishop, see Epistolae Cantuarienses (ed. Stubbs, W, Rolls Series; London 1865) 68, 471, 476, 506; Gervase of Canterbury, Opera I (ed. Stubbs, R. S.; London 1879) 366ff.; cf. Stubbs' Introduction, Epp. Cant. xliv, liv, ciii; von Savigny, C. F, Geschichte des römischen Rechts im. Mittelalter (2nd ed. Heidelberg 1834–51) IV, 325; Pollock and Maitland I, 121; Kuttner, , ‘Bernardus Compostellanus Antiquus,’ Traditio 1 (1943) 326 n.30. It is uncertain who drew up the formal brief for the monks, Epp. Cant. 520-30; Pollock and Maitland presume that it was written by one of the Italian lawyers.Google Scholar

5 The Registrum Antiquissimum of the Cathedral Church of Lincoln (ed. W Foster, C. and Major, K., Lincoln Record Soc. 27-29, 32, 34; 1931–40) III, 164. Another country parson, Galfridus de Croppere, shortly after the Fourth Lateran Council obtained a dispensation from the law of residence, for three years, to study ‘in s. scriptura et canonibus’: Rotuli Hugonis de Welles (ed. Phillimore, W P W, Canterbury and York Soc.; London 1905–9) I, 39.Google Scholar

6 For MSS of canon law cf. Kuttner, S., Repertorium der Kanonistik (1140–1234) (Studi e Testi 71; Città del Vaticano 1937) passim: for MSS of civil law cf. e.g. Senior, W, ‘Roman Law MSS. in England,’ Law Quarterly Review 47 (1931) 337-44; other MSS and references from library catalogues will be given by E. Rathbone in her forthcoming book. — Copies of Gratian were, however, rare in Wales, according to Gerald of Wales, Gemma ecclesiastica 1.1 ‘Set quoniam in partibus illis canonum copia non habetur, ipsa capitula vobis quoque scripta transmisimus’ (Giraldi Cambrensis Opera ed. Brewer [Rolls Series; London 1861-91] II, 12).Google Scholar

7 James, M. R., Lists of Manuscripts formerly in Peterborough Abbey Library (Supplement to the Bibliographical Society's Transactions 5; Oxford 1926) 21.Google Scholar

8 Cf. Kuttner, , Repertorium 273f., 276; Cheney, M., Engl. Hist. Rev. 56 (1941) 181. Such supplements are not always concerned with new texts alone; for example, an appendix made up of older canons abstracted from Burchard's Liber decretorum and accordingly in 19 ‘books’ is found in several MSS of Gratian, cf. Kuttner, , ‘De Gratiani opere noviter edendo,’ Apollinaris 21 (1948) 120 n.9.Google Scholar

9 Holtzmann, W, ‘Über eine Ausgabe der päpstlichen Dekretalen des 12. Jahrhunderts,’ Nachrichten der Akademie der Wiss. in Göttingén. Phil.-hist. Kl. 1945. pp. 15–36; Kuttner, , ‘Notes on a Projected Corpus of Twelfth-Century Decretal Letters,’ Traditio 6 (1948) 345-51; for the English material see Nos. 12-26 of Dr. Holtzmann's list, p. 22, of twenty-six (twenty-seven: Trad. 6, 348) primitive collections.Google Scholar

10 Canterbury : London, Brit. Mus. Royal MS 10.B.iv, fol. 42v-58v; 59v-65v (Holtzmann's No. 14, Coll. Cantuar. I et II). For collections no longer extant see e.g. Nos. 1048, 1050, 1056, 1081, 1317, 1318 in James, , Ancient Libraries 99ff.; but entries in the old inventories are of course to be judged with caution (cf. e.g. James' No. 628, from Prior Eastry's catalogue: ‘Casus decretalium secundum Johannem Hispanum. In hoc volumine continentur: Constituciones Romanorum Pontificum et decretales epistole.’ The book is today MS D.11 [Y.8] of Christ Church, Canterbury, and contains after de Deo, Johannes, Casus decretalium, 58 leaves of Bernard of Parma's Glossa ordinaria on the Decretals. Prior Eastry's misleading description is based on two passages of the prologue [beg. 'In huius libri principio quinque sunt prenotanda'l : ‘Intentio domini Gregorii. diuersas constitutiones et decretales epistolas in unam compilationem reducere; materia in hoc opere sunt ipse constitutiones et decretales epistole sub singulis titulis collocate ***.’). — Worcester: Brit. Mus. Royal MSS 10.A.ii, fol. 5-62v (Holtzmann's No. 22, Coll. Wigorn.; cf. Lohmann, H. E., ‘Die Collectio Wigorniensis,’ Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte [=ZRG], Kan. Abt. 22 [1933] 36-187); 11.B.ii, fol. 97-102 (Holtzmann's No. 12, Coll. Wigorn. II; cf. Kuttner, , Repertorium 283-5); 15.B.iv, fol. 107v-118v (Holtzmann's No. 18. Coll. Royal).Google Scholar

11 Cf. Lohmann, , op. cit. 53 n.1 and Poole, R. L., ‘The Early Lives of Robert Pullen and Nicholas Breakspear***,’ in Essays in Medieval History Presented to T F Tout (Manchester 1925) 69.Google Scholar

12 Giraldus Cambr. Opp. VII, 57.Google Scholar

13 Cf. Holtzmann, , Über eine Ausgabe 26; cf. Nos. 19, 20 of his list, p. 22.Google Scholar

14 Ibid. Nos. 21-26. Additional fragments of one of these, Coll. Peterhusensis (No. 26; cf. Traditio 6, 348) have been found in the meantime. The collection can now be reconstructed (Bks. 1-4.52) as follows: Cambridge, Peterhouse MS 193, fol. 223-230v; MS 114, fol. i-viii, 219-224v; MS 193, fol. i-viii; MS 203, fol. 258-263v; MS 180, fol. i-viii; 225-232v. (Information kindly supplied by Dr. Holtzmann and by Mr. Charles Duggan of Trinity College, Cambridge. Mr. Duggan hopes to publish shortly a detailed study of this and some related collections.) Google Scholar

15 Cf. Juncker, , ‘Die Collectio Berolinensis,’ ZRG Kan. Abt. 13 (1924) 344 n.3.Google Scholar

16 Cf. Friedberg, E., Quinque compilationes antiquae (Leipzig 1882) xi ff.; F. Heyer, ZRG Kan. Abt. 3 (1913) 625ff.; Holtzmann, W., ‘Die Register Papst Alexanders III. in den Händen der Kanonisten,’ Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven 30 (1940) 15.Google Scholar

17 Kuttner, , Traditio 6, 349, citing the evidence from Honorius, the Summa In nomine, and the Summa De iure canonico tractaturus. Google Scholar

18 Cf. Holtzmann, , Die Register 64; ‘Die Dekretalen Gregors VIII.’ Mitteilungen des Instituts für österr. Geschichtsforschung 58 (1950) 115 n.4. On Coll. Abrincensis cf. references in Kuttner, , Repertorium 299. —Paris, B. N. MS lat. 3922A from Rouen, with its several, successive supplements (Coll. Rotomagensis etc.) to the Coll. Francofortana, affords an interesting example of the working methods of an Anglo-Norman collector, cf. Holtzmann, , Die Register 66; Über eine Ausgabe 23, 35; and in Zeitschrift für Schweizer Geschichte 29 (1949) 152. An index of rubrics and chapters of a collection of the Bambergensis group, with marginal references to additional decretals, is found in Brit. Mus. MS Royal 2.D.ix, fol. 11-22r, probably from Pershore Abbey; the references in the margin are given by arabic number (!), inscription, and incipit, evidently from an English primitive collection. The MS represents the preparatory stage of a compilation of the type of MS Tanner 8.Google Scholar

19 The evidence from the Caius glosses on the Decretum, the Royal Quaestiones, the glosses of the Vacarian school, and the Ordo Baltimorensis is given below, Appendix A.Google Scholar

1 Cf., e.g., Richardson, H. G., ‘The Oxford Law School under John,’ Law Quarterly Review 57 (1941) 322f., 336.Google Scholar

2 Chronicon Abbatiae de Evesham (ed. Dunn Macray, W, Rolls Series; London 1863) 147, 168; cf. Pollock and Maitland I, 121; Kantorowicz, , Bractonian Problems 18; Richardson, in Engl. Hist. Rev. 59 (1944) 41 n.4.Google Scholar

3 William Fitzstephen speaks of leges only: ‘per annum studuit in legibus Bononiae,’ Materials for the History of Thomas Becket (ed. Robertson, J. C., Rolls Series; London 1875–85) III, 17; John of Salisbury, of ius civile and sacri canones, cf. ibid. II, 304.Google Scholar

4 Cf. Foreville, R., L'église et la royauté (supra, Introd. n.1) 21.Google Scholar

5 Herbert of Bosham, in Mat. Becket III, 523; John of Salisbury, ep. 168 (ibid. V, 163). On the use of the Decretum in the letters of the archbishop's later years see Brooke, , The English Church and the Papacy 111, 209; Foreville, , op. cit. 146ff., 265-8 etc.; an interpretation given by St. Thomas of C.11 q.1 c.45 is quoted in the glosses of the French school on Stephen of Tournai's Summa (Berlin, Staatsbibliothek MS lat. qu. 193), printed by Thaner, F., ‘Zwei anonyme Glossen***,’ Sitzungsberichte der kais. Akademie der Wiss. Philos.-hist. Klasse [=SB Vienna] 79 (1875) 231, 221, n.1: ‘Sanctus Thomas volens facere autenticum consonare sic exponebat quod hic dicitur “competentes iudices” i.e. clericus clericum et laicus laicum iudicem ’ (Thaner mistook this for a reference to St. Thomas Aquinas).Google Scholar

6 Cf. Petr. Bles. ep. 26 (PL 207, 91; also in Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis ed. Denifle and Chatelain I [Paris 1889] 32 No. 27). On his career see now Cheney, C. R., Bishops' Chanceries (I n.1 supra) 9 n.1, 24, 33-5.Google Scholar

7 Epp. 26, 71, 115 etc.Google Scholar

8 Thorne, William, Chronica , in Twysden, , Historiae anglicanae scriptores X (London 1652) 1821f.; Thomas of Elmham, Hist. monast. S. Augustini (ed. Hardwick, C., Rolls Series; London 1859) 420-3; cf. JL 13039-40. — Gervase of Canterbury, Opp. I, 367ff.; cf. Stubbs, Introd. to Epp. Cantuar. p. xlvii and Index s.v. Blois.Google Scholar

9 Thorne, Wm., loc. cit.— Cf. Savigny's, censure, Gesch. des röm. Rechts IV, 436: ‘gibt von dem Stand seiner juristischen Bildung eben keinen hohen Begriff.’ Google Scholar

10 Ep. 19 : ‘Verumptamen cum sis in scolis, ego autem in castris, et cum iam biennium in legibus et canonibus expenderis, vereor ne temptative hoc facias, ut sic me in simplicitate mea callide comprehendas’ (Chart. Univ. Par. I, 35; PL 207, 69).Google Scholar

11 Peter refers to the canons of the Decretum mostly by their inscription alone (ex octava synodo, ex synodo Eugenii papae etc., cf. PL 207, 70f.), which corresponds neither to the Bolognese nor to the early French style (on the latter, cf. Repertorium 171, 173). It is perhaps characteristic that he solves the first part of the proposed question ultimately ‘assertione iuris civilis,’ i.e. by paraphrasing Dig. 2.1.15, and the second part, without giving any argument of authority at all. Whether he ought to have discussed the pertinent decretal JL 14061 (X 3.32.3) of Alexander III (cf. Goussainville's note, PL 207, 71 n.50) remains an open question as long as the date of ep. 19 is unsettled.Google Scholar

12 Brooke, Z. N., ‘The Register of Master David of London,’ in Essays in History Presented to R. L. Poole (Oxford 1927) 227–45.Google Scholar

13 Kuttner, , Repertorium 19, 51; Traditio 1, 281 n.15. For a reference in the Summa Permissio quedam (French school) cf. Repertorium 193; Ullmann, W, Medieval Papalism (London 1949) 11 n.6.Google Scholar

14 See de Zulueta, F., The Liber pauperum of Vacarius (Selden Soc. 44; London 1927) xiii–xxiii. For traces of lost MSS of the Liber pauperum (in addition to those listed by de Zulueta pp. xxiv ff.) cf. e.g. Senior, W., Law Quart. Rev. 47 (1931) 337 (Glastonbury), 339 (Lanthony), 341 (Durham).Google Scholar

15 De Zulueta***, , pp. 299, xxii, xxiv (b); perhaps also in glosses on the Ordo Olim edebatur, cf. ibid. xxii n.36; Caillemer, E., ‘Le droit civil dans les provinces anglo-normandes au XIIe siècle,’ Mémoires de l'Académie nationale de Caen (1883) 192.Google Scholar

16 To be discussed on another occasion (E. R.). Cf. also ch. VII n.7a infra. Google Scholar

17 The Tractatus de assumpto homine, of which Maitland, , Law Quart. Rev. 13 (1897) 142–3, published the prologue (a full edition is now being prepared at the Gregorian University in Rome, cf. de Ghellinck, J., Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique 44 [1949] 173 n.1); and the Liber contra multiplices et varios errores , ed. da Milano, Ilarino, L'eresia di Ugo Speroni nella confutazione del maestro Vacario (Studi e testi 115; Città del Vaticano 1945). In the latter treatise, Vararius alludes to several other theological writings of his, p. 583: ‘in quibusdam aliis meis opusculis’ (cf. Introd. 95).Google Scholar

18 The following decretals are addressed to, or make mention of Vacarius: Alexander III, JL 11908 (1171); 13937 (1177 iun. 30, cf. Repertorium 280 as against the conjectural date 1165-8 proposed by Liebermann, F., Engl. Hist. Rev. 11 [1896] 312 n.62); 14224 (undated); a decretal of 22 July 1179, ed. Holtzmann, W, Papsturkunden in England I (Abhandlungen der Gesellschaft der Wiss. zu Göttingen, Phil.-hist. Kl. N. F. 25; 1930–31) 440 No. 169; and an otherwise unknown fragment in the collection of Bodleian MS Tanner 8 (p. 895b, between the canons of the Council of Tours and those of the Third Lateran Council), addressed to the abbots of Rufford and Leicester and Master Vacarius.—Urban III, JL 15740-41 (undated); Innocent III, Potthast 347 (1198).Google Scholar

19 Cf. de Zulueta, , Lib. paup. xxiii; of the glosses referring to canon law (cf. Index VI, p. 318; most of them from Wenck's lost codex or from the secondary strata of the other MSS) none can be considered as being by Vacarius himself (cf. Index VI, pp. 310-14).Google Scholar

20 da Milano, Ilarino, op. cit. 74, 345f.Google Scholar

21 Gratian D.32 p.c.6; C.1 q.7; 9 q.1; 24q.l. Cf. Saltet, L., Les réordinations (Paris 1907).Google Scholar

22 Contra multipl. errores pp. 486 §1 No. 3, 489.2.1, 494.5.2, 503.11.1, etc. Cf. Padre Ilarino's Introd. 135-83. Similarly, in the discussion of baptism (511.13.3; cf. Introd. 92 n.1, 223f.) Vacarius introduces the concept of possession at civil law.Google Scholar

23 Maitland, F. W., ‘Magistri Vacarii Summa de matrimonio,’ Law Quart. Rev. 13 (1897) 133–43 (introd.) and 270-87 (text; not reprinted in Collected Papers III, 87ff.); he puts the terminus a quo (basing himself on Schulte's dates for Rufinus) at 1156 (p. 139f.).Google Scholar

24 De matr. §§ 12, 17, 30 (pp. 274, 283) etc. Cf. Maitland, , op. cit. 136f.; de Zulueta, , Lib. paup. xxiii.Google Scholar

25 De matr. §16 (p. 276f.); cf. de Ghellinck, J., ‘Magister Vacarius: Un juriste théologien peu aimable pour les canonistes,’ Rev. d'hist. eccl. 44 (1949) 173–8, at p. 177. A similar contempt for canon law was expressed by Peter the Chanter and Master Ivo (the Younger) of Chartres, whom he quotes, cf. Verbum abbreviatum c. 53 (PL 205, 162-5, esp. 164C; on Master Ivo see Smalley, B., Engl. Hist. Rev. 50 [1935] 680-6; Landgraf, A.M., Einführung in die Geschichte der theologischen Literatur der Frühscholastik [Regensburg 1948] 135f.). Their strictures, however, differ from those of Vacarius the civilian in that they measure the positive law of the Church against the divine law.Google Scholar

26 Ep. 19 (Chart. Univ. Par. I, 35; PL 207, 69).Google Scholar

27 Chart. Univ. Par. I, 21–3; cf. Thorne, S. E., op. cit. (above, Introd. n.2) 500.Google Scholar

28 Ep. 71 (Chart. Univ. Par. I, 33; PL 207, 219). This nephew was not his namesake, the canonist and chancellor of Chartres, cf. Traditio 2 (1944) 492 n.2.Google Scholar

29 Gir. Camb. Opp. I, 46-8. Master Roger and Peter of Blois were the only survivors of thirty-seven who went to Sicily with Stephen of Perche in 1167; Pet. Bles. ep. 46 (PL 207, 133). He was perhaps the Master Roger who disputed with Peter the Chanter whether Thomas Becket had died a rebel or a martyr, cf. Gutjahr, S., Petrus Cantor Parisiensis: Sein Leben und seine Schriften (Graz 1899) 16 n.4, quoting Caesarius of Heisterbach, Dialogus miraculorum 8.69 (ed. Strange, J., Cologne 1851; II, 139). Roger was a member of the chapter of Rouen before 1181, cf. Merlet, L., Cartulaire de l'abbaye de la Sainte-Trinité de Tiron (Chartres 1883) II, 98 (1171–82); Round, J. H., Calendar of Documents Preserved in France (London 1899) No. 11 (1173–81; cf. ibid. No. 41); cf. also PL 207, 134, n.100. (But the letter of the Cardinal Legate Peter [Steph. Torn. ep. 69 in Du Molinet's, ed.], referred to in Histoire littéraire de la France 15 [1820] 327f. is not to Dean Roger the Norman, cf. Desilve, J., Les lettres d'Etienne de Tournai [Paris 1893] ep. 83, p. 97 n.3.).Google Scholar

30 Mat. Becket III, 101, 527.Google Scholar

31 Ibid. V, 166. Williams, J. R., in Speculum 6 (1931) 406, quoting Peter the Chanter, , Summa de sacramentis, MS Paris, B. N. lat. 14521, fol. 78rb. Cf. London, Brit. Mus. MS Harl. 3596, fol. 128.Google Scholar

32 Mat. Becket III, 52. One of his pupils was Ralph de Sully, Abbot of Cluny (1173-?), cf. Thorpe, J., Registrum Roffense (London 1769) 51.Google Scholar

33 Gervase of Prémontré, ep. 57 in Hugo, C. L., Sacrae antiquitatis monumenta (Etival 1725) I, 55. For the reading Northampton see Cheney, C. R., ‘Gervase, Abbot of Prémontré,’ Bull. John Rylands Library 33 (1950) 40 n.9.Google Scholar

34 As for others, such as Warin of St. Alban's (cf. below, ch. VIII n.11), a connection with the schools of France remains uncertain.Google Scholar

35 Gibbs, M., Early Charters of the Cathedral Church of St. Paul, London (Camden Third Series 58; London 1939) 187; Gregory, A., ‘The Cambridge MS of the Quaestiones of Stephen Langton,’ The New Scholasticism 4 (1930) 189 and n.Google Scholar

36 Kuttner, S., ‘Les débuts de l'école canoniste française,’ Studia et Documenta historiae et iuris 4 (1938) 192–204. MSS of Gratian with glosses of the French school (much more numerous than was assumed in this paper, p. 200) will be discussed elsewhere (S. K.).Google Scholar

37 Ibid. 197; Schulte, , in SB Vienna 68 (1871) 51f.Google Scholar

1 Incerti auctoris Ordo iudiciarius ed. Haenel, (Leipzig 1836). Cf. Conrat, M., Geschichte der Quellen und Literatur des römischen Rechts im früheren Mittelalter (Leipzig 1891) 615; Caillemer, , Le droit civil etc. (above, II n.15) 170-4.Google Scholar

2 Schulte, , SB Vienna 70 (1872) 285–326. Cf. Caillemer, , op. cit. 178-81; Seckel, E., ‘Distinctiones glossatorum,’ Festschrift F von Martitz (Berlin 1911) 330; Juncker, J., ZRG Kan. Abt. 15 (1926) 466 n. (discussing interpolated references, cf. Traditio 6, 349 n.43). A second copy of the Ordo is found in the miscellaneous codex Brit. Mus. Royal 2.D.ix (cf. above I n.18).Google Scholar

3 Op. cit. 175f. A set of proof-sheets of Caillemer's abortive edition is now in the library of the University of Minnesota Law School.Google Scholar

4 Edited by Caillemer, , op. cit. 204–26 and discussed ibid. 197ff.Google Scholar

5 Cf. Caillemer, , op. cit. 185–7; Seckel, , ‘Über neuere Editionen juristischer Schriften aus dem Mittelalter,’ ZRG Rom. Abt. 21 (1900) 306-22 (citing MSS and editions, p. 307f. and maintaining Otto's authorship ‘trotz einiger nicht leicht wiegender Zweifel,’ p. 107); de Zulueta, , Lib. paup. xxii n.36; Genzmer (-Seckel), ‘Über die dem Pillius zugeschriebene Summa de ordine iudiciorum “Invocato Christi nomine”,’ Sitzungsberichte der Preuss. Akad. der Wiss. Phil.-hist. Kl. (1931) 413 n.2 No. 8. Among the MSS to be added to Seckel's list, we find again (cf. n.2) the Royal MS 2.D.ix.Google Scholar

6 Richardson, H. G., ‘The Oxford Law School under John,’ Law Quart. Rev. 57 (1941) 319–38; ‘The Schools of Northampton in the Twelfth Century,’ Engl. Hist. Rev. 56 (1941) 595f. For the decretal collection used by the author of the Ordo see below, Appendix A (IV). — The forms have been in part edited by H. E. Salter, in Formularies Which Bear on the History of Oxford c. 1204–1420 (Oxford Historical Soc. n.s. 4-5; 1942) II, 271-7, and are discussed in Cheney, , Bishops' Chanceries (above, ch. I n.1) 124-8.Google Scholar

7 Two early treatises of a similar type, written in a hand of the twelfth century, are found in MS Brit. Mus. Royal 10.B.iv (from Christ Church, Canterbury) fol. 33-41: ‘Iudicandi formam in utroque iure,’ and fol. 59r-v: ‘Iudicium est trinus personarum trium actus,’ with several other civilian and canonistic treatises (including Peter of Blois' Distinctiones, cf. Repertorium 220, and an extract de praescriptionibus from Stephen of Tournai's Summa, cf. below, IV n.8), two decretal collections (cf. Repertorium 282; Holtzmann, , Über eine Ausgabe 22) and the Lateran Decrees of 1179 (fol. 62ra). The treatises on procedure will be discussed elsewhere.Google Scholar

8 Ed. Wahrmund, L., Quellen zur Geschichte des römisch-kanonischen Processes im Mittelalter II, 2 (Innsbruck 1914); cf. de Zulueta, F., in Mélanges G. Cornil (Paris 1926) II, 639-57; Richardson, H. G., ‘Azo, Drogheda, and Bracton,’ Engl. Hist. Rev. 59 (1944) 38ff.Google Scholar

9 Kantorowicz, H., Studies in the Glossators of the Roman Law (Cambridge 1938) 72, listing editions of twelfth-century Ordines, speaks of ‘unusual, even excessive attention.’ In the case of Ricardus Anglicus, for example, two modern editions are available of his Ordo, but his other works have remained unprinted to this day. — It is certainly correct that the study of law in Bologna was closely bound up with ars notaria and dictamen (Richardson, , Oxford Law School 331ff.), but it is very debatable whether one can lay all the stress (p. 336) on the ‘intensely practical’ nature of the school.Google Scholar

1 Kuttner, , Repertorium 129–31; cf. Barraclough, G., Engl. Hist. Rev. 53 (1938) 493 n.3.Google Scholar

2 E.g. to D. 29-31, 32-35 (fol. 4ra-va, 5va). Another codex from Worcester, Brit. Mus. Royal MS 11.B.ii, contains the works of Paucapalea and Rolandus together with Notabilia on excommunication and penance, a primitive collection of decretals (Repertorium 126, 128, 240, 283; cf. above I n.10), and a fragment of glosses of a very early type to D.1 c.1-9 (fol. 85v; not properly determined loc. cit. 128).Google Scholar

3 Fol. 19r.Google Scholar

4 E.g. fols. 10r, 10v, 11r, 13r, 13v, 30r, 31v, 32v, 34r, 34v.Google Scholar

5 Fols, 11r, 13v, 14r, 18v, 19r. Cf. Repertorium 129 n.2. For Metellus see also Quaestiones Stuttgardienses q.29 (ed. Thaner, , Die Summa Magistri Rolandi [Innsbruck 1874] 283).Google Scholar

6 Distinctiones, vol. I fol. 36-59; cf. Repertorium 213, 214 n.2.Google Scholar

7 Repertorium 139–41; cf. Barraclough, , loc. cit. 493; see also Ullmann, , Med. Papalism 59 n.2, 64, 66 (‘Summa Lambethana’).Google Scholar

8 To the single English MS of Stephen's Summa listed in Repertorium 135 (Worcester MS Q.44) may now be added the fragment (to D.30 C.17-D.39 c.11) in Queen's College, Oxford, MS 317 (fol. 140ra-142va) from Reading (I should like to thank Dr. R. Klibansky for drawing my attention to this codex. E. R.). An extract de praescriptionibus from Stephen's Summa to C.16 q.3 is found in Cambridge, Trinity College MS O.7.40 (fol.176v; cf. Repert. 135 n.7) from St. Augustine's, Canterbury, and in Brit. Mus. Royal MS 10.B.IV (fol. 42) from Christ Church.Google Scholar

9 Repertorium 136–41. The evidence for French origin (cf. ibid. 136 n.2) will be discussed elsewhere.Google Scholar

10 Repertorium 172–7 The provenance of the MS is doubtful, cf. Brooke, , The Engl. Church and the Papacy 244; Ker, N., Medieval Libraries of Great Britain (London 1941) 25 rejects Canterbury.Google Scholar

11 For Durnum=Dour, cf. e.g. the charter in MGH Dipl. 3, 492 lin. 26, 28. This disposes of the suggestion made in Repert. 172.Google Scholar

12 Jo. Sar. ep. 284 (‘*** scienti legem loquor’: PL 199, 320B); but the term might also denote the lex mosayca. — This Odo is not to be confused with Odo, prior of Canterbury (1167) and later abbot of Battle, cf. Schaarschmidt, C., Johannes Saresberiensis nach Leben und Schriften (Leipzig 1862) 273 and Webb's, C. J. note in his edition of the Policraticus (Oxford 1909) I, 7 line 17; Webb suggests (ibid. II, 205) that he may be the Odo whose letter to Gilbert Foliot is wrongly prefixed to the Ysagoge in theologiam in Cambridge, Trinity College MS B.xiv.33 (on which see Landgraf, A., Ecrits théologiques de l'école d'Abélard [Spicilegium sacrum Lovan. 14; 1936] xlivf.) Google Scholar

13 The list given above is selective. English work might also be represented by certain transformations (Repertorium 269-71) and abbreviations (ibid. 261f.) of the Decretum in English MSS, as e.g. the Abbreviatio Lex alia divina est (Brit. Mus. MS Harley 3842, based on Omnibonus) or the Abbreviatio Matrimonium est (London, Lambeth MS 139, from Lanthony). For an unusual copy of the Decretum from Lanthony, in Lambeth MS 449, cf. Revert. 30.Google Scholar

14 Repertorium 131, 24, 29.Google Scholar

15 Fols. 4ra, 4vb, 5ra-b, 6ra, etc.Google Scholar

16 Kuttner, , Traditio 1, 295 n.24; cf. Schulte, , ‘Die Summa Decreti Lipsiensis,’ SB Vienna 68 (1871) 45f. Not connected with the tradition of these MSS are the interesting glosses of the French school in MS Heiligenkreuz 44, although two of them are signed as follows: (i) to D. 54 dict. a.c. 9: ‘Peculium est substantia secundum r. p.’ (fol. 46, based on Rufinus and Paucapalea); (ii) to C.11 q.3 c.3: ‘Sententiam omnimodo iustam faciunt B.’ (fol. 132, not identical with any of the texts on sententia iusta and iniusta discussed by Gillmann, F., Archiv für katholisches Kirchenrecht [=AKKR] 104 [1924] 5ff.).Google Scholar

17 Repertorium 234.Google Scholar

18 Barraclough, , Engl. Hist. Rev. 53, 494.Google Scholar

19 Morey, A., Bartholomew of Exeter, Bishop and Canonist (Cambridge 1937).Google Scholar

20 Morey, , op. cit. 4f.Google Scholar

21 Gir. Camb. Opp. VII, 57.Google Scholar

22 They are not set off in Dom Morey's edition from the canons quoted and therefore not always easy to recognize. Some dicta are of importance for understanding the structure of the work, e.g., cc.5-7 (p. 177 lin. 23-178.9), cc.10-11 (181.27-182), c.22 (191.32-192.22); others contain summulae, e.g., c. 25 (194.6-16), c.26 (195.2-14); others again, interpretations.Google Scholar

23 E.g. c. 58, where the distinction ‘qui non omnem quam debuit diligentiam adhibuit’ (223.14-19), follows Rufinus (to D. 50 c.37; ed. Singer, , Die Summa Decretorum des Magister Rufinus [Paderborn 1902] 126); in c.117 the restrictive interpretation of C. 33 q.2 c.12 (279.25-31) is based on Rufinus ad loc. (500 Singer).Google Scholar

24 Compare, e.g., the summulae on excommunication (c. 118, p. 280) and perjury (c. 73, p. 241) with the contemporary commentaries to C.11 q.3 and C.22 q.2. By contrast, note the reference in c.73 to English law, ‘iudicia uero que uulgo leges aperte uocantur,’ (241.34; cf. Liebermann, , Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen [Halle 1903–16] I, 583 and references; ibid. Index s.v lex.). Cf. above, note 21.Google Scholar

25 Cf. Morey 173f. and notes to the edition, passim. E.g. c.24 (192.34-194.4), c.47 (214.21-32), c.71 (240.13-29; the source is Ivo, , Decr. 6.397), c.72 (240.31-241.14; the source is Burch. Decr. 19.42), c.73 (241.37-242.21; Burch. 12.14, 8, 9 or Ivo 12.71, 65, 66), c.117 (279.32-280.4), c.128 (286.28-287.15) etc.Google Scholar

26 For its influence on Robert of Flamborough and the treatise De iniungendis penitentiis cf. Morey, , op. cit. 171; Anciaux, P, La théologie du sacrement de pénitence au XII e siècle (Louvain 1949) 129-30. Its relation to the Notabilia on excommunication and penance (above, n.2; Repertorium 240) needs to be investigated.Google Scholar

27 Repertorium 156, 197.Google Scholar

28 Ibid. 198–204. To the evidence for the English origin of the Summa In nomine the passage ‘*** hinc argumentum precipue commendandam esse ecclesie anglicane institutionem’ (fol. 363r) may be added. (An error in the original foliation of Oriel MS 53, thus far unnoticed, makes the following corrections of references necessary : Summa In nom. fols. 356r-363v, Quaest. Oriel. 338r-339v, Coll. Oriel. I and II, 340r-349v, 353r-354v [cited as fobs. 256, 238 etc. in Repert. 199, 249, 295 and elsewhere].) Google Scholar

29 Repert. 13, 24, 26. The glosses of Olmütz, Cathedral Chapter MS 266 (set iv, added to three earlier, Bolognese strata) are related at least to the Summa Et est sciendum (Repertorium 195), one of the chief sources of Omnis qui iuste. Google Scholar

30 Caillemer, , Le droit civil etc. (above, II n.15) 182. Schulte, , Die Geschichte der Quellen und Literatur des canonischen Rechts von Gratian bis auf die Gegenwart I (Stuttgart 1875) 233 believes that the Ordo and the Summa Omnis qui iuste may even be written by the same author.Google Scholar

31 These glosses are found particularly in the section on marriage (fol. 155ff.); like the Summa itself (cf. Traditio 6, 349 n.38) they cite decretals from the Appendix Conc. Lat. Google Scholar

32 Below, ch. VI.Google Scholar

33 Below, ch. IX.Google Scholar

1 Cf. Hist. litt. de la France 14 (1817) 301; Chart. Univ. Par. I, 9-10.Google Scholar

2 References below, nn. 5ff., 36ff.Google Scholar

3 Saltet, L., Les réordinations (Paris 1907) 355, quoting the text from Schulte, , SB Vienna 68 (1871) 43f. Cf. de Ghellinck, J., Le mouvement théologigue du XIIe siècle (2nd ed. Bruges etc. 1948) 348 n.4 (1st ed. Paris 1914: p. 224 n.5). Saltet, , op. cit. 355 n.2 says that also Glos. ord. on Dist. 19 c.8 refers to him: ‘Variis modis ponitur casus huius capituli. G. inducit quasi sit abrogatum, et Melendus sentit cum eo et omnes qui dicunt ueritatem sacramentorum non esse apud heréticos ***.’ But G. is here Gratian who rejects c.8 in the dictum that follows; cf. also dict. ante c.8 and the Nota correctorum. Google Scholar

4 Until recently the only substantial account of Gerard Pucelle's activities was that of Reuter, H., Geschichte Alexanders des Dritten (Leipzig 1860–64) III, 216–21, which, however, treats but one aspect of his career. In 1949 Father A. Gabriel brought together the known material about various aspects in ‘English Masters and Students in Paris during the XIIth Century.’ Analecta Praemonstratensia 25 (1949) 38-40. A fuller account will be given by E. Rathbone in English Cathedrals and the Schools (cf. above, I n.1).Google Scholar

5 Jo. Sar. ep. 199 (PL 199, 220B).Google Scholar

6 Map, Walter, De nugis curialium 2.7 (ed. James, M. R., Anecdota Oxoniensia 14; Oxford 1914) 69. Lucas became later archbishop of Esztergom.Google Scholar

7 W. Map ibid. — Flahiff, G. B., ‘Ralph Niger,’ Medieval Studies 2 (Toronto 1940) 106 n.13, 107; for Ralph's views on the study of law see Kantorowicz, H. and Smalley, B., ‘An English Theologian's View of Roman Law: Pepo, Irnerius, Ralph Niger,’ Medieval and Renaissance Studies 1 (London 1941) 244ff. — Jo. Sar. ep. 238 (PL 199, 269, on Richard); Libellus de vita et miraculis s. Godrici auctore Reginaldo monacho Dunelmensi (ed. Stevenson, W., Surtees Soc. 20; 1845) 452-4.Google Scholar

8 Jo. Sar. ep. 185, cf. epp. 238, 295 (PL 199, 195 and 268f., 340f.). Gerard's discussion of the term persona is quoted by Prepositinus, cf. Chart. Univ. Par. I. 9 No. 10, note; Gabriel, , loc. cit. 39 n.173.Google Scholar

9 Herbert of Bosham, in Mat. Becket III, 525; Jo. Sar. ep. 239 (PL 199, 271).Google Scholar

10 Mat. Becket III, 525; V, 478.Google Scholar

11 Jo. Sar. ep. 168 (PL 199, 160D; Mat. Becket V, 351).Google Scholar

12 Jo. Sar. loc. cit. and ep. 189 (PL 199, 199C).Google Scholar

13 Ibid, and ep. 197 (PL 199, 216D-217B). Cf. Giesebrecht, W, Geschichte der deutschen Kaiserzeit V, 2 (Leipzig 1888) 518f. and VI (1895) 457; Knipping, R., Die Regesten der Erzbischöfe von Köln im Mittelalter II (Bonn 1901) No. 856; Spörl, J., ‘Rainald von Dassel in seinem Verhältnis zu Johann von Salisbury,’ Historisches Jahrbuch der Görres-Gesellschaft 60 (1940) 250-57.Google Scholar

14 Ibid. and ep. 239 (PL 199, 271; Mat. Becket VI, 453). Alexander III, JL 11400-01.Google Scholar

15 Mat. Becket VI 433–6.Google Scholar

16 Ibid. 436.Google Scholar

17 Kuttner, , Repertorium 170–2, 178f., 215f., 168 n.6 (121). In the Summula Hactenus the form for a bill of complaint is made out in the name of ‘ego Remgerus canonicus sancti Andree sancte Coloniensi ecclesie sedi presidente Philippo ***,’ cf. Singer, H., ‘Beiträge zur Würdigung der Decretistenlitteratur,’ AKKR 69 (1893) 443 n.244; a canon and schoolmaster of St. Andrew's named Renerus is mentioned by Caesarius of Heisterbach, Dialogi miracul. 4.50 (ed. Strange I, 217). — For connections of at least one treatise of civil law, a commentary de regulis iuris, with Cologne and Mayence, see Haenel, G., ‘Zu Bulgarus’ Commentar de regulis juris,' Sitzungsberichte der sächsischen Akademie der Wiss. Phil.-hist. Cl. 27 (1875) 244f., 255 (Leipzig, Universitätsbibl. MS Haen. 12, foi. 25ff.).Google Scholar

18 Vienna MS lat. 2125; Paris, B. N. MS lat. 14997. These glosses, beginning with a divisio of the system of moral sciences (‘Moralis sapientia [est que add. Par.] in libris utriusque iuris, hec diuiditur in ratiocinatiuam et amministratiuam, hec [que Par.] in amministratione officiorum continetur et in echonomicam politicam [et ethicam add Par.] subdiuiditur ***’; cf. also Ullmann, , Med. Papalism 26 n.1) will be discussed elsewhere.Google Scholar

19 Repertorium 168, 179, n.3; cf. Singer, , ‘Beiträge II,’ AKKR 73 (1895) 82 n.248, 97ff. (also pp. clxviii n. and clxxii-iii of his edition of Rufinus).Google Scholar

20 Cf. the various forms for appeals etc. at C. 2 q.6: ‘*** Ego R. sancte col(oniensis) ecclesie episcopus te W bon(nensis) ecclesie canonicum ad apostolicam sedem quam appellasti ab obseruatione mei iudicii hiis apostolis dimitto; Ego G. sancte bon(nensis) ecclesie filius licet indignus; Ego G. contra sententiam domini R. col. archiepiscopi iniuste in me illatam (corr. latam) idus febr. anno incarnationis domini M.c.lxviii. feria ii. rem. (corr. Romanam) sedem appello et apostolos peto; Nos G. et b. sindici (idest defensores inter lin.) canonicorum sancte bon(nensi)s ecclesie ***’ (Verdun MS 35, fol. 13v-14r). Archbishop Rainald died on 14 August 1167; the date in form iii must be emended (also on computistic grounds) to Monday, 13 February 1167. The Summa, based on Paucapalea and Stephen of Tournai, will be discussed elsewhere. (I should like to thank the Rev. Dr. P J. Kessler for drawing my attention to this codex. S. K.) Google Scholar

21 Repertorium 168f. For the dependence of the Summa Elegantius on Peter Lombard see Saltet, , Réordinations 332 n.1; Landgraf, A., in Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 63 (1939) 167-9, 175 n.118. The Summa Antiquitate et tempore was probably composed in Paris, after the author's stay at Cologne, cf. Singer loc. cit. (n.19). For French influences on the judicial organization of the archdiocese of Cologne see Gescher, F., ‘Um die älteste Satzung des erzbischöflichen Offizialats von Köln,’ Annalen des Historischen Vereins für den Niederrhein 130 (1937) 1-21.Google Scholar

22 Haskins, C. H., ‘An Italian Master Bernard,’ Essays R. L. Poole (Oxford 1937) 220.Google Scholar

23 Ficker, J., Reinald von Dassel (Cologne 1850) 5; Koeppler, H., ‘Frederick Barbarossa and the Schools of Bologna,’ Engl. Hist. Rev. 54 (1939) 583; Martens, , ‘Philipp von Heinsberg,’ Allgemeine deutsche Biographie 26 (1888) 3; Lauchert, LThK 8 (1936) 230 s.v.Google Scholar

24 Caes. Heist. Dial. 2.16, 4.49 (ed. Strange I, 84f. and 215). Master Godfrey is not to be confused with Godfrey, notary of the dean of the Cathedral (Dial. 6.5, 11.43-44; cf. Strange I, 9 n.1). His stay at Rheims antedates the death of St. Bernard (1153), cf. Dial. 2.16; he was succeeded as scholasticus of St. Andrew's by Master Renerus (cf. n.17 above).Google Scholar

25 Cf. Repertorium 171. Teetaert, A., ‘Commentationes historiae iuris canonici,’ Collectanea Franciscana 14 (1944) 238, considers the entry on the fly-leaf as being written by the same hand as the text of the Summa. Google Scholar

26 Earlier studies on Godfrey of St. Victor (cf. Manitius, M., Geschichte der lateinischen Literatur des Mittelalters III [Munich 1931] 779) have now been largely superseded by the researches of Ph. Delhaye; cf. Revue du moyen âge latin 3 (1947) 225-41; Revue bénédictine 58 (1948) 93-109, and particularly his two volumes, Le Microcosmus de Godefroy de Saint-Victor: Edition — Etude théologique (Mémoires et travaux des Facultés catholiques de Lille 56-7; Lille-Gembloux 1951). Delhaye has refuted the traditional identification of Godfrey of St. Victor with Geoffroy de Breteuil; on the possibility of assigning to the Victorine master the Summa Elegantius he expresses himself with the greatest reserve (op. cit. II, 196-8). One might add that the one passage on moralis sapientia and law in which Delhaye finds a vague similarity with some verses of Godfrey's Fons philosophiae (p.198) does not even belong to the author but to the glossator of the Summa (cf. n.18 above), and that elsewhere Godfrey shows a certain contempt for canonists: ‘nullus erit nisi sit loquax decretista’ (Fons phil. 24.2, ed. Charma, A., in Mémoires de la Société des Antiquaires de Normandie 3 7 [1869] 15).Google Scholar

27 Law Quart. Rev. 13 (1897) 137.Google Scholar

28 D.4 c.2 v. mala consuetudo: ‘ut in Anglia, si aliquis naufragium passus fuerit, si qua retinuit, eadem confiscantur et auferuntur ei’ (Singer, AKKR 73, 69 n.199). Cf. the passionate denunciation of the English law of wreck by Gerald of Wales, De principis instructione 1.20 (Opp. VIII, 117-20).Google Scholar

29 D.18 c.4; cf. Singer loc. cit. 82-4 and n.252. The quotation in Sum. Par. reads ad loc. v. iperberiti: ‘idest septembris. secundum hoc quomodo idus sit decimus dies dubitat m. Girardus. vel possumus dicere ***’ (Our thanks are due to Father G. B. Flahiff for collating Bamberg MS Can. 36 with Schulte's reading in SB Vienna 64 [1870] 127.) Google Scholar

30 For MSS see Maassen, F, Geschichte der Quellen und Literatur des canonischen Rechts (Graz 1870) 806ff. and 846; Wurm, H., Studien und Texte zur Dekretalensammlung des Dionysius Exiguus (Bonn 1939) 37-9; for the occasional use made of Cresconius by early medieval collections, Bras, Fournier-Le, Histoire des collections canoniques en occident (Paris 1931-2) I, 331, 343, 425; II, 117.Google Scholar

31 The three passages are quoted in Schulte, , Geschichte der Quellen und Lit. I, 44 (as from Rufinus); for corrections and observations see Singer, AKKR 73 (1895) 53, 84, 89, 111; Rufinus clxix f.Google Scholar

32 Rome, Biblioteca Vittorio Emanuele MS 1369 (Sessor. 43) fol. 75ra; (photostats obtained through the kindness of Professor G. Levi Della Vida); cf. Patetta, , ‘Sull'introduzione del Digesto a Bologna,’ Rivista italiana per le scienze giuridiche 14 (1892) 66–7. The title, ‘lucubratiuncule egidii’ (in cipher, cf. Patetta loc. cit.) is certainly recherché and may have been suggested by classical or patristic reminiscences, cf. Fronto, , Epp. ad Marcum Caes. 1.4(3); Pliny, , N.H. praef. 24; St. Jerome, , epp. 117.2, 119.1; the text begins (ad v. Humanum genus) ‘Recentes auditorum animi ***.’As far as one can judge from the brief fragment, which covers only D.1 pr.-c.7, the work was to contain quaestiones decretales. Egidius depends very much on the Summa of Simon of Bisignano (c. 1177–9); in addition, he cites ste. (probably Stephen of Tournai), Master Aldric (on whom cf. Savigny, , Geschichte IV, 231-6; Johannes Bassianus called him ‘aliquis utpote subtilissimus,’ cf. Kantorowicz, , Studies in the Glossators 54), an unidentifiable Master blā. (cf. the text below, Appendix B) and Gerard Pucelle. This suggests that Egidius may have belonged to one of the Western schools rather than to that of Bologna; the literary type (cf. below, ch. VI on quaestiones decretales) would seem to point in the same direction.Google Scholar

33 The full quotation is printed and discussed below, Appendix B. — One of the two marginal notes added by another hand to Egidius' fragment is signed ‘secundum bazianum’ (d. 1197) and reads (to D.1 c.7) : ‘Set fertur M. G. sic dixisse quia sicut facilius possum tibi ostendere quod non sit deus quam quod sit, ita facilius possum ostendere quod non sit ius naturale quam quod sit.’ This observation is certainly characteristic of the spirit of intellectual adventure among the twelfth-century scholastics, but whether G. here refers to Gerard remains very doubtful.Google Scholar

34 It is not mentioned by other scholars (Seckel, Kantorowicz, Meijers) who have studied the codex Sessorianus after 1892 for the miscellaneous civilian writings it contains. We may add here that among its various unrecorded items (fol. 75ff.) there is a fragment of the Summa of Sicardus (fol.78r-79v).Google Scholar

33 Round, J. H., Ancient Charters (Pipe Roll Soc.; London 1888) 72.Google Scholar

36 Cf. for example William Thorne and Thomas of Elmham as cited above, II n.8; Gir. Camb. I, 48f. Further details will be given elsewhere (cf. above, n.4).Google Scholar

37 Chron. monast. de Bello (above, I n.2) 172–8. Of Gerard's pleading (pp. 176-8) the author says: ‘cum perorasset et allegationem suam legum et decretorum, quae hic inserere longum erat, auctoritatibus comprobasset ***,’ (p. 178).Google Scholar

38 Douglas, D. C., The Domesday Monachorum of Christ Church Canterbury (London 1944) 45 n.4, 109.Google Scholar

39 Vatican MS Reg. lat. 179, ed. Duchesne, A., Historiae Francorum scriptores IV (Paris 1641) 567–762; cf. Luchaire, A., Etudes sur quelques manuscrits de Rome et de Paris (Université de Paris, Bibliothèque de la Faculté de lettres 8; 1899) 31ff.Google Scholar

40 PL 200, 1370f.; Mansi 21, 963; Chart. Univ. Par. I, 9f. Nos. 10-11 (JL 13023, 13032).Google Scholar

41 Paris, Bibl. Ste.-Geneviève MS 1651 (E.l.25) fol. 221; cf. Chart. Univ. Par. I, 45 n.1.Google Scholar

42 Coll. Cottoniana (No. 25 in Dr. Holtzmann's list [above, I n.9]) 5.21: JL 13032 (London, B. M. Cotton MS Vitell. E.xiii, fol. 256; cf. Hampe, K., in Neues Archiv der Ges. für ältere deutsche Gesch. 22 [1896] 391).Google Scholar

43 Rathbone, E., ‘John of Cornwall: a Brief Biography,’ Recherches de Théologie ancienne et médiévale [=RTAM] 17 (1950) 49.Google Scholar

44 For this episode see the Annales Stadenses and the Catalogus episcoporum Bremensium, Mansi 22, 236 (better in MGH Script. 16, 348) and 240. It seems highly probable that magister Gherardus (quidam magister Gerardus Mansi) was Gerard Pucelle, who was at the Council as Archbishop Richard's deputy (Gir. Camb. Opp. I, 48), the more so in view of his intervention on behalf of John of Cornwall.Google Scholar

45 He witnesses a charter as bishop-elect, Oxford, MS Bodl. 423, fol. 95rb.Google Scholar

46 Gervase of Canterbury, Opp. I, 307–8.Google Scholar

47 Obit list in London, B. M. Cotton MS Nero C.ix, fol. 3v.Google Scholar

48 Mat. Becket III, 525.Google Scholar

49 Sum. Lips. (above n.3), Sum. Par. (n.29), Egidius (n.33).Google Scholar

50 Durham MS C.iii.1, fol. 68; cf. Repertorium 26 and n.1.Google Scholar

51 Liége, Séminaire MS 6.N.15, Summa Quid sit symonia (fol. 135r-145v), to C.2 q.3, Qua pena feriendi sint qui in accusacione defecerint: ‘Refert utrum accuset in scriptis ***uel sine scriptis Magister Gerardus tamen distinxit utrum sit necessarius accusator an ***oluntarius. Necessarius, ut heres pro morte testatoris et filius de morte patris. Necessarius ***on timet penam talionis; de uoluntario predicta intelliguntur’ (fol. 173rb-va). We wish to thank Abbé G. Fransen, who plans to publish a study on this Summa of the French school, discovered by him, for his kind permission to quote the passage on Gerard from his transcript.Google Scholar

52 Rye, W B., ‘Catalogue of the Library of the Priory of St. Andrew, Rochester, A.D. 1202,’ Archaeologia Cantiana 3 (1860) 60 No. 205.Google Scholar

1 Six MSS are listed in Kuttner, , Repertorium 424 and Traditio 1 (1943) 321 n.4; add Paris, B. N. MS lat. 14591, fol. 50-83ra (from St. Victor). Honorius' name appears in the explicit of Douai MS 640 (fol. 42va) and the incipit of Zwettl MS 162 (fol. 179r).Google Scholar

2 Schulte, , ‘Literaturgeschichte der Compilationes antiquae,’ SB Vienna 66 (1870) 58–64; briefly mentioned in Geschichte der Quellen und Lit. I (1875) 234 n.2 (‘Interessante Quaestiones zu den Dekretalen weist nach meine Lit. Gesch. S.8-15’), but not at all in the chapter on ‘Systematische Schriften’ (p. 231).Google Scholar

3 Saltet, , Réordinations 318–21, 338 and n.1; cf. de Ghellinck, , Mouvement théologique 200 n.2 (2nd ed. 322 n.5).Google Scholar

4 Tailliar, Eugène F. J., Notice de manuscrits de la bibliothèque de Douai concernant la législation du moyen âge (Douai 1845; reprinted as appendix to Duthilloeul, H. R., Catalogue déscriptif et raisonné des manuscrits de la bibliothèque publique de Douai, 1846) 48ff. quoting from MS 584 (now 640). Cf. also the description of MS 640 by C. Deshaisnes in vol. 6 (in-4°) of the Catalogue général des manuscrits des départements (Paris 1878).Google Scholar

5 Chronicon Abbatiae de Evesham 126; Roger of Hoveden, Chronica (ed. Stubbs, W, R. S.; London 1868–71) IV 44f., 52, 89, 158ff., 176ff. Some aspects of Honorius' ecclesiastical career have been treated by Stubbs, Introd. IV, lxxi ff.; Thompson, A. H., ‘The Register of the Archdeaconry of Richmond,’ Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 25 (1920) 131-5; Clay, C. T., Early Yorkshire Charters IV (Yorkshire Archaeol. Soc. Record Series, extra series I; 1935) xxv f.; Painter, S., The Reign of King John (Baltimore 1949) 166f. and 236f.; Cheney, , Bishops' Chanceries 12f. His identity with the author of the Summa quaestionum was briefly stated by Kuttner, S., in Traditio 1, 321 n.4; cf. also ‘Zur neuesten Glossatorenforschung,’ Studia et docum. hist. et iuris 6 (1940) 305 n.43; see further Ullmann, W, ‘Honorius III and the Prohibition of Legal Studies,’ Juridical Review 60 (1948) 179; Med. Papalism 11; Rathbone, E., RTAM 17 (1950) 52 n.39.Google Scholar

6 Potthast, , Regesta Romanorum pontificum I [=Po.] (Berlin 1874) Nos. 1190-91, 1260–62, 1285 (X 3.7.6), 1311, 1338 (X 2.20.30), 1692 (X 3.8.7) 1693-94, 5035 (X 1.10.3). Two other mandates are referred to in Po. 1190, 1191, 1261, cf. note 24 below. — Another decretal addressed to Honorius (Po. 1402 :X 2.25.2 archidiacono Richemundie, but cf. S Comp. 2.16.1 and several primitive collections [cited Repert. 302; MS Vat. Pal. 652 c.7] for fuller address) is not concerned with the Richmond case.Google Scholar

7 Po. 1338: ‘dilectus filius magister Honorius de Kent (al. Rent’, Bent', Berent'; cf. Friedberg, , Corp. iur. can. II, 326 n.10 to X 2.20.30) qui archidiaconus Richemundie nominatur ***,' Google Scholar

8 Holtzmann, , Papsturkunden in England I, 510 No. 228.Google Scholar

9 Ibid.: ‘*** non praeiudicante eo quod pater eius in eadem ecclesia ministret’ etc.Google Scholar

10 Po. 1692 (PL 214, 1022B).Google Scholar

11 Salter, H. E., The Cartulary of Oseney Abbey (Oxford Historical Soc.; Oxford 1929–36) IV, 431; cf. E. Rathbone, RTAM 17, 52 and 50 n.28.Google Scholar

12 Rog. Hov. III, 298; IV, 9, 44.Google Scholar

13 Po. 1692 (PL 214, 1023B). Cf. Fournier, E., Les origines du vicaire général (Paris 1922) 91f.Google Scholar

14 Gir. Camb. Opp. IV, 383 (‘copiose litteratum et jurisperitum’); Stubbs, , Rog. Hov. IV, Introd. li. Lanthony Priory owned a ‘Summa magistri symonis de Apuleya, quaternus ligatus,’ No. 281 of the fourteenth-century catalogue in Williams, R. W., ‘Gloucestershire Medieval Libraries,’ Transactions of the Bristol and Glos. Archaeol. Soc. 31 (1908) 153. Cf. Edwards, K., The English Secular Cathedrals in the Middle Ages (Manchester 1949) 181, 190; cf. 187 n.3. The nature of the Summa remains, however, uncertain, since the codex was kept at the library in arm. IV grad. 3, which contained almost no legal books (for a few exceptions see Nos. 287-8, 304-6), while the proper shelves for books of canon and civil law were arm. IV grad. 1 and 2 (see Nos. 229-48, 250-71 of the catalogue).Google Scholar

15 The Historians of the Church of York and its Archbishops (ed. Raine, J., Rolls Series; London 1879-94) III, 92–4, 99-104; Rog. Hov. III, 170, 230f., 278-85; Celestine III, JL 16829, 17108, 17121, 17300-02, etc. Cf. Stubbs, , loc. cit. lvii-lxxiv.Google Scholar

16 Vac. 1.14 n.6 (Cod. 1.23.5): ‘arg. pro decano eboracensi.’ (De Zulueta, , Lib paup. Introd. lxxxv, rightly expresses ‘considerable doubts’ as to Wenck's interpretation, which referred this gloss to the controversy on primatial rights between the sees of Canterbury and York.) The passage of Justinian's Code on which the gloss was written reads: ‘Sacrilegii instar est divinis super quibuscumque administrationibus vel dignitatibus promulgandis obviare beneficiis.’ Among the complaints of Dean Simon and the chapter against the archbishop, adjudicated by Celestine III on 8 June 1194 (JL 17121), there is one for which this lex could well be cited as an argumentum: Geoffrey, the chapter claimed, had refused to reinstate disseized canons and clerks, spurning every mandate of restitution (cf. Rog. Hov. III, 280). Or perhaps the gloss refers to the incident when Simon on his return from Rome, in February 1195, was forcibly prevented by the archbishop's familiares from making his entrance as dean in the Cathedral (ibid. 283f.).Google Scholar

17 Rog. Hov. III, 298 (case of the West Riding, 1195), IV, 158 (case of Cleveland, 1201), 174f. (case of Beverley, 1201; cf. Gir. Camb. Opp. I, 435).Google Scholar

18 Eubel, , Hierarchia catholica medii aevi I (2nd ed. Münster 1913) 242.Google Scholar

19 Rog. Hov. IV, 44f.Google Scholar

20 Ibid. 52. For Roger as a witness in royal acts cf. e.g. Epp. Cant. 549, 551 (1196-97).Google Scholar

21 Rog. Hov. IV, 52; Po. 1692 (PL 214, 1022B).Google Scholar

22 Rog. Hov. IV, 89.Google Scholar

23 Ibid. 176: ‘.*** propter appellationes hinc inde factas et propter testium varietatem.’ Google Scholar

24 Po. 1190 (20 December 1200), 1191, 1261: ibid. 181, 184, 177 The mandates which Innocent III revoked are lost; there was one addressed to the abbots of St. Edmund's and Sibton and the prior of Norwich (cf. Po. 1190, 1261), and another, to the abbots of St. Edmund's and St. Benet of Holme and the prior of Monk's Toft (cf. Po. 1191).Google Scholar

25 Rog. Hov. IV, 126 and 177 (Po. 1261).Google Scholar

26 Ibid. 158f.; Po. 1260 (3 February 1201, wrongly dated anno quarto by Stubbs, , ibid. 160). The liberties at issue were chiefly: (1) freedom from episcopal censures against the clergy of the archdeaconry (cf. Po. 1260); (2) the archdeacon's right of institution to benefices and (3) his custodia of vacant churches in the archdeaconry (cf. Po. 1260, 1285). Geoffrey insisted that all these had been conceded only as personal privileges to one of Honorius‘ predecessors (William de Chemillé [Chimely], archd. 1189–96; cf. Rog. Hov. III, 16; IV, 12, 37, below, VII n.7); that in conferring the archdeaconry upon Honorius he had expressly reserved the said rights; and moreover, that the latter had renounced them formally in writing. Honorius maintained that the franchises belonged to the archdeaconry as such; that the archbishop had reserved them only after the conferral; and that he, Honorius, had renounced these libertates under duress and for tactical reasons, after having been dispossessed by the archbishop; the act of renunciation on the part of a spoliatus being invalid at canon law (cf. Po. 1285: Rog. Hov. IV, 177ff. and X 3.7.6; cf. also Po. 1692 [PL 214, 1023C] for his denial that he had renounced the archdeaconry itself). Stubbs’ unfavorable opinion of Honorius in this matter (Rog. Hov. IV, lxxii) is unjustified.Google Scholar

27 Rog. Hov. IV, 158; Po. 1260–62 (ibid. 159, 177, 181). Also the mandate Po. 1311 (fragment, without address or date; ibid. 181) belongs to this phase of the struggle; it is probably the letter addressed to the bishop of Ely and the abbot of Waltham, mentioned in Po. 1260.Google Scholar

28 Cf. Po. 1338 (X 2.20.30), which must be dated before Po. 1285.Google Scholar

29 Po. 1285, anno quarto (the date 22 February - March 1201 in Potthast is too narrow). The textual transmission of the letter (transl. Thompson, A. H., loc. cit. supra n.5) is very unsatisfactory both in Roger of Hoveden (IV, 177ff.) and the decretal collections (Alan. 3.6.3, Bern. Compost. 3.9.4, 3 Comp. 3.7.3, X 3.7.6.). Quite apart from the cuts in the latter, there are many divergencies; thus the name of William de Chemillé (cf. note 26 above; Friedberg, , Corp. iur. Can. II, 485 n.15 ad loc.) is missing in Hoveden's text, and the passage ‘cui archidiaconus competebat’ (Rog. Hov. IV, 178.15-18; cf. Friedberg ibid. between nn. 16 and 17) is certainly corrupt, etc.Google Scholar

30 Po. 1692 (PL 214, 1021-5; X 3.8.7), 1693–4. Some time before reaching this final decision, Innocent seems to have been annoyed with both parties and contemplated applying the rule of escheat, Po. 5035 (X 1.10.3; a fuller text in the collection of Alanus, app. 55 [2nd ed. 1.9.3], cf. von Heckel, R., in ZRG Kan. Abt. 29 [1940] 319f.).Google Scholar

31 Po. 1695 (PL 214, 1027B; a shorter text in X 1.9.6).Google Scholar

32 Reg. Antiquiss. Lincoln (cf. above, I n.5) I, 254 ( c. 1200–05, probably not before 1203); more documents cited in Major, K., Bull. Inst. Historical Research 10 (1932–3) 148; Cheney, , Bishops' Chanceries 12 nn. 5-6.Google Scholar

33 Chron. Evesham 126.Google Scholar

34 Gir. Camb. Opp. III, 323. — Honorius' reputation as a lawyer outside his immediate circle is evident also from the quotation, in Geoffrey of Coldingham, of his opinion in the dispute between Bishop Philip (1197–1208) and the monks of Durham: ‘dominus Honorius, vir discretus, Richemundiae archidiaconus, immanitatem impiorum arguens, et populum manifeste docens, quod in his omnibus episcopus graviter deliquisset, nulla auctoritate suffultus, cum prior ecclesiae a jurisdictione episcopali se per appellationem absolvisset,’ Historiae Dunelmensis scriptores tres (ed. Raine, J., Surtees Soc. 9; 1839) 22. For the dispute see Barlow, F, Durham Jurisdictional Peculiars (Oxford 1950) 22-7 Google Scholar

35 Rotuli litt. patentium I, 57; cf. Stubbs, , Introd. to Walter of Coventry's Memoriale (Rolls Series; London 1873) II, l-li; Clay, , Early Yorks. Charters IV, xxvi; Painter, , Reign of King John 166f. For Honorius' motions at the Curia see Innocent III, Po. 2732 (PL 215, 836C, 837B) : he was not pleading for the monks of Christ Church (as Cheney, , Bishops' Chanceries 13 n.1 holds) but for the minority among the monks that had been won over by the king for John de Grey's candidacy. As to other lawyers active in the proceedings cf. Traditio 1, 301f. and 326 n.30.Google Scholar

36 Rot. pat. I, 57 Google Scholar

37 Pipe Roll 3 John (Pipe Roll Soc. New Series 14; London 1936) 160; a similar entry for Roger of St. Edmunds, , ibid. 248. Cf. the Pipe Rolls for the following years (N.S. 15-24; London 1937–45) : 4 John 58, 5 John 205, 6 John 198, 7 John 46, 8 John 195, 9 John 82, 10 John 54. A second debt, one palfrey, dates of 1205 and runs from Pipe Roll 7 John 58 to 11 John 133. Cf. also Rotuli litt. clausarum I, 115; Clay, , loc. cit. Google Scholar

38 Annales Dunstapliae , in Annales monastici (ed. Luard, H. R., Rolls Series; 1864–9) III, 31. Cheney, , op. cit. 13 n.1 and Painter, , op. cit. 236f. assume that he was imprisoned perhaps not only for financial reasons.Google Scholar

39 Clay, , loc. cit. Google Scholar

40 Cf. notes 6, 26, 28–30.Google Scholar

41 Saltet, , Réordinations 320f., 338 n.1. Honorius ultimately sides with G. (p. 338), the Summa Omnis qui iuste, with Jo. (p. 334 n.3). Since Gandulph did not treat of this matter in his Sententiarum libri IV (ed. von Walter, J., Vienna 1924), the attribution to him of the opinion of Master G. on ordinatio ambulatoria (Saltet 318ff.; cf. Walter, , Introd. xxxvi ff.; de Ghellinck, , Mouvement théol. 322 n.5) remains but an attractive conjecture, whereas Jo. is certainly John of Faenza (cf. e.g. the quotations in Glos. ord. to C.9 q.1). Gandulph's name is nowhere given in full in the texts relating to the controversy (see also the Bolognese glosses quoted by Saltet 354; in the text of Sum. Omnis qui iuste quoted p. 320 n.1, ‘.*** contra sententiam Gandulphi,’ the name has been expanded by the editor; cf. p. 335 and the MSS). On the other hand, G. cannot stand for Gerard Pucelle, who held the opposite opinion (ibid. 355); and Dr. Ullmann's suggestion, Jurid. Review 60 (1948) 179, to refer the siglum to Willielmus Vasco (Guascus, Gulilelmus, fl. c. 1210–30) must be rejected on paleographical as well as chronological grounds; for William's career and writings cf. Traditio 1, 336-40; Engl. Hist. Rev. 60 (1945) 105.Google Scholar

42 E.g. below n.82. To cite only one other example, the discussion of six meanings of the term ius naturale (cf. Repertorium 201-4) recurs almost verbatim in Honorius, dist. 3 tit. 1.Google Scholar

43 Leipzig, Universitätsbibliothek MS 986, fol. 42v; Laon MS 371bis. fol. 95rb (Summa De iure can.) and 173va (Honorius). For another example see below, Appendix C.Google Scholar

44 According to the Summa, the decretal JL 13912 Presbyterum (addressed to Bartholomew of Exeter) would seem to be part of Alexander III's famous response to Bartholomew on the legitimation of natural children, JL 13917 Tanta est vis. This is also asserted, in the same context, by Ricardus Anglicus: ‘*** Alex, enim quendam sacerdotem post homicidium commisum qui annis .xii. penitentiam agunt (sic) sacerdotio restituit in capitulo illo quod incipit Tanta est uis, uocatque eos inperitos qui sacerdotem reparari non posse opinantur post dignam penitentiam ***’ (Summa quaestionum [cf. below, ch. IX] Montecassino MS 396, p. 199b). But the actual opening section of JL 13917 (Meminimus, cf. App. 33.1, Sang. 9.32) must have remained unknown to the two canonists.Google Scholar

45 Cf. Traditio 6, 349 n.39; additional evidence may be found even in the text printed by Schulte, , SB Vienna 66, 60–4; e.g. p. 62 ‘extra. de ordinat. fi(liorum) sa(cerdotum)’ (App. tit. 19); p. 64 ‘extra, de iure patr. Dilectus’ (App. 47.2; not in 1 Comp. but 2 Comp. 3.24.1).Google Scholar

46 See e.g. Hon. de iure patr. 2.15 q.1: ‘*** Vel secundum S' ius patronatus merum (mixtum?) est spirituale nec de mero iure set dumtaxat ex dispensatione canonum est ***’ (Laon MS 371bis, fol. 176r; the text of Bamberg, printed by Schulte loc. cit. 61 lin. 5-6 is corrupt). Cf. Simon de Bisignano on C.16 q.7 in Schulte, , SB Vienna 63, 322f. For a passage of doubtful reading, which only at first sight seems to quote Huguccio, cf. Appendix C.Google Scholar

47 Preface: ‘ utile duximus sub tripartita colligere distinctione, quarum (om. Schulte) prima continet questiones ad ordinem iudiciarium pertinentes, secunda metas (meras Sch.) decretales ad ministros altarisque ministeria spectantes, tertia matrimoniales ’ (Douai MS 640, fol. Ira; Schulte, , SB Vienna 66, 58). The term ‘titulus’ is not used in the preface, but frequently in cross-references, e.g. 1.8 de confessione: ‘*** contraria capitula habes supra t. de accusatione’ (Douai fol. 7rb); 2.4 de potestate ligandi et solvendi: '*** quere supra t. de notoriis (fol. 16va), etc. — A list of titles is given by Schulte, , loc. cit. 59f., but there seem to be variations in the MSS.Google Scholar

48 In the Douai MS these two titles (de iure naturali, de prohibitionibus) occupy nearly twelve columns (fol. 26rb-29rb), one-seventh of the whole codex. — It may be observed here that at the end of part III several MSS contain various additions. The last title, de errore conditionis, is followed in the Douai MS, fol. 42vb, by a quaestio reportata, ‘Cuidam coniugato dampnato ad mortem donatur uita si intret monasterium Magister adhesit huic parti, quicquid uideatur theologis.’ In Leipzig, Universitätsbibliothek MS 984, the following question is appended: ‘Queritur si Lazarus resurgeret an posset uxorem repetere ***.’; this problem belonged to the traditional stock of scholastic discussions, cf. the Summa Et est sciendum (Glos. Stuttg. as quoted in Gillmann, AKKR 107 [1927] 220), Huguccio (ibid. 221 n.1), and a collection of quaestiones reportatae from the school of Bazianus in Montecassino MS 396 (p. 84b-112b) q.3 (p. 86a). — Such accretions prove the use made of Honorius' work in the schools, as does also the addition of marginal notes by later readers, e.g. in MS Douai 640 (quoting decretals of Innocent III from Comp. III).Google Scholar

49 Repertorium 151f. 171. For the system of the Summa Elegantius, fifteen partes subdivided in tituli, see Gillmann, , AKKR 106 (1926) 533–41, and particularly the table of contents prefixed to the Vienna codex (MS 2125, fol. 1-10r), which is authentic, as stated in the epilogue: ‘*** Tytulatim autem opos (sic) hoc distinximus tytolosque omnes cum sua numerorum adiectione prenotare curauimus, ut lectori per hanc diligentiam quid quesierit sine difficultate occurat’ (fol. 154).Google Scholar

50 Repertorium 221. Occasionally there is a certain topical coherence among Peter's distinctiones, e.g. cc. 34-42 on coactio; cf. also Reimarus, , Petri Blesensis opusculum de distinctionibus (Berlin 1837) Introd. xxi.Google Scholar

51 Repertorium 425. The title de crimine (2.8), for example, has a very long summa; tit. 2.4 begins without any continuatio : ‘De potestate ligandi et soluendi queritur utrum heretici hanc habeant ’; for various continuationes cf. Schulte, , SB Vienna 66, 59f.Google Scholar

52 Cf. the glosses (wrongly attributed to Peter of Poitiers, cf. Landgraf, , Einführung [above, II n.25] 99f.) to the Sentences of Peter Lombard, quoted by Saltet, , Réord. 350, 356; ‘hec questio magis est decretalis quam theologica ***,’; ‘.*** hec questio decretalis est.’ Google Scholar

53 Kantorowicz, , Studies in the Glossators 129ff.; Kuttner, , in Studia et docum. hist. et iuris 6, 304-8; Traditio 1, 320f.; Landgraf, , ‘Quelques collections de “Quaestiones ***”,’ RTAM 7 (1935), 122ff.; Einführung 41; de Ghellinck, J., ‘Pagina et sacra pagina …,’ Mélanges Auguste Pelzer (Louvain 1947) 53-5.Google Scholar

54 E.g. de crimine 2.8 qq. 5, 6, 10; de iure patr. 2.15 qq. 3-6, 9-12 (cf. below, Appendix C).Google Scholar

55 Martin, R. M., Les oeuvres de Robert de Melun (Louvain 1932–8) I, xxxvi; Kantorowicz, , ‘The Quaestiones disputatae of the Glossators,’ Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 16 (1937–8) 4 and 21f., citing Boethius (cf. e.g. PL 64, 1048Dff; 1176Dff.).Google Scholar

56 Quaestiones de epistolis Pauli, prol. (Oeuvres II, 3.18). Cf. Grabmann, , Geschichte der scholastischen Methode II (Freiburg 1911) 328; Kantorowicz, , Studies 129 (‘catechismal type’). For example: ‘Set quid si hereticus uel excommunicatus presentet, numquid tenetur (episcopus) admittere? Resp. nequaquam, arg. xvi. q.vii. Pie, Trigentius’ ( Honorius, , de iure patr. q.11, cf. Schulte, , SB Vienna 66, 63).Google Scholar

57 See the question on violentie repulsio below, Appendix C.Google Scholar

58 The term is used by Rogerius and other civilians (cf. Kantorowicz, , Studies 192), following perhaps the Auctor ad Herennium 2.10.15; also by Robert of Melun (‘Questiones de epistolis Pauli enodate’).Google Scholar

59 Cf. Kantorowicz, , Tijdschr. 16, 16 (Hugolinus); Genzmer, ZRG Rom. Abt. 55 (1935) 329 (Pillius); Kuttner, , Repert. 427 (Damasus).Google Scholar

60 Examples may be found in Rufinus, Stephen of Tournai, etc.; for Simon de Bisignano and the Summa Omnis qui iuste cf. the texts printed by Juncker, J., ZRG Kan. Abt. 15 (1926) 326–500, passim. Google Scholar

61 D. 6 pr.; D. 14 pr.; D. 19 pr.; D. 20 pr.; D. 23 p.c.11, p.c.13; D. 27 pr.; D. 33 pr.; D. 34 p.c.12; D.37 pr.; D. 39 pr.; D. 50 pr.; D. 54 p.c.21; D. 63 p.e.34, p.c.35; D. 65 p.c.8; D. 68 pr.; D. 74 pr.; D. 92 p.c.3 (§1); D. 95 p.c.2 (§1); D. 99pr. —to cite examples from pt. I only.Google Scholar

62 For theological quaestiones originating in the lectio cf. Landgraf, , RTAM 7, 124f.; Einführung 41; Glorieux, P., ‘Sentences,’ DThC 14 (1941) 1873; ‘Sommes théologiques,’ ibid. 2341ff.Google Scholar

63 Repertorium 152. For incidental quaestiones in pt.I see e.g. the section de continentia (=D. 26ff.): 12 questions.Google Scholar

64 Cf. Kuttner, , ‘Réflexions sur les brocarda des glossateurs,’ Mélanges Joseph de Ghellinck (Gembloux 1951) II, 767–92, esp. 783ff., where the question of Sicard's French connections is discussed.Google Scholar

65 Repert. 187–90.Google Scholar

66 E.g. several fragments (‘Questio si iure naturali’; ‘Dubitatur a quibusdam’) in Arras MS 271, cf. Repertorium 181, 154 (French connections are also to be assumed for the prologue ‘Omnia poma vetera et nova,’ ibid. 154; cf. the beginning of Peter Comestor's glosses on St. John's Gospel, Landgraf, , Einführung 103). See further the Lucubratiunculae of Egidius (above, V n.32) and, for a later period, a set of glosses in Paris, B. N. MS 3886A, with queries and answers based on Huguccio's Summa. Google Scholar

67 Zwettl MS 162, fol. 179r, as cited above.Google Scholar

68 Gir. Camb. De rebus a se gestis 2.1 (Opp. I, 45f.). His description makes it clear that these were not quaestiones disputatae: it was he himself, not the auditores, who argued the causae decretales, using legum et canonum rationes and rhetoricae persuasiones. Gerald has preserved the inception, ‘Proposueram prius audire ***,’ (p. 46f.) and the topic of his first quaestio (p. 47) : ‘utrum iudex secundum allegata iudicare debeat an iuxta conscientiam,’ which was one of the most widely discussed problems for civilians and canonists alike; cf. references in Kantorowicz, , Studies in the Glossators 21 n.19; Glos. ord. ad C.3 q.7 c.4 v. audit; ad C.30 q.5 p.c.9 v credenda; ad X 1.31.1 v. quod canones censent, etc.Google Scholar

69 Opp. I, 48.Google Scholar

70 Ch. IX.Google Scholar

71 The quaestiones of Angers MS 312, fol. 129r-136v (Repertorium 251) are, however, to be eliminated: the fragment can be identified as q.5-q.10 c.15 of Courson's, Robert Summa. Google Scholar

72 Our thanks are due Abbé G. Fransen for contributing this interesting discovery.Google Scholar

73 The MS has been reexamined after the first mention made in Repert. 255. (The fragment fol. 103ra-va belongs to a treatise on procedure.) Google Scholar

74 The codex, from Mont-Saint-Michel, contains the Collectio decretalium Abrincensis, the Comp. I and miscellaneous other canonistic material (cf. e.g. Traditio 1, 299 n.40, 312 nn.19-20, 323 n.17 [ii]). Immediately preceding the Summa quaestionum is a group of quaestiones disputatae, of French origin, after 1210 (beg. ‘Dominus papa contulit cuidam monasterio tale priuilegium’).Google Scholar

75 These may belong together with other quaest. disp. in the same codex, fol. 143-148v (‘Papa scribit episcopo parisiensi ***’), fol. 156r. Cf. Trad. 1, 324 n.22a.Google Scholar

76 Ibid. 323 n.17 (vii); followed by quaest. disputatae discussed ibid. 323ff.; cf. Ullmann, , Med. Papalism 210f.Google Scholar

77 Repert. 427 (Damasus; a summula precedes e.g. his quaestio de causa propr. et poss.: Hec materia difficilis est et bene et diligenter exposita circa litteram ***,' MS Vat. Borgh. lat. 261, fol. 27va); Traditio 1, 322 n.9 (Johannes de Deo); the Quaestiones mercuriales of Johannes Andreae are disputations and at the same time a commentary on the Regulae iuris of the Liber Sextus. Google Scholar

78 Seckel, , ‘Ueber neuere Editionen ***,’ ZRG Rom. Abt. 21 (1900) 289 n.1; Kuttner, , in Studia et docum. hist. et iuris 6, 307 Google Scholar

79 Rome, Biblioteca Casanatense MS 1910, fol. 73r-v; Avranches MS 149, fol. 135rb-va.Google Scholar

80 For Drogheda see Wahrmund, and de Zulueta, loc. cit. (above, III n.8); for Gandinus and Galeottus, cf. Kantorowicz, , in ZRG Rom. Abt. 44 (1924) 277, 294; for Roffredus, Schulte, , Gesch. II, 78.Google Scholar

81 Paris and Chartres: Hon. 1.4 de occultis; 2.5 de clavibus; cf. Saltet, , op. cit. 319 n.3.Google Scholar

82 Hon. 2.10 de usuris : ‘*** Item queritur de culcitis que parisius a scolaribus suscipiuntur mutuata certa pecunia sub hac conuentione ut singulis mensibus de mutuo remittatur unus denarius quasi in precium locationis, utrum scolares sint usurarii? nec excusantur ex dispensatione episcopi parisiensis, set nec ex pape indulgentia possent excusari cum utriusque testamenti pagina sit usura detestata, ut xxv. q.i. Sunt qui (c.6),’ Laon MS 371bis, fol. 174va. Cf. Sum. Omnis qui iuste to C. 14 q.4 in fine: ‘*** Item de clericis qui in scolis sunt solet queri an usurarij sint; hac enim conditione x. uel xii. solidos commodant pro culcitis ut quolibet mense denarius de sorte remittatur; set quid de episcopo parisiensi qui hoc aprobat et dispensat cum clericis qui parisius sunt nec maior eo, quia contra ius naturale non potest dispensare,’ Rouen MS 743, fol. 83rb. — The students in the hospices at Paris had to rent or to provide their own matresses, as Father A. Gabriel has kindly pointed out to us by letter; cf. e.g. Jacques de Vitry: ‘Audivi cum essem Parisius de quodam scolari quod in morte culcitram suam dimisit in manus socii sui ***,’ (Exempla ed. Crane, Th. F, London 1890; no.115).Google Scholar

83 Note 11 above.Google Scholar

84 Chron. Evesh. 126; for his studies under Langton see ibid. 232f.Google Scholar

1 Repertorium 22f.Google Scholar

2 E.g. fols. 64r, *193ra, *194ra, *198ra and below, note 21. (The asterisk denotes glosses printed below, in Appendix D.) Google Scholar

3 Fol. 88va, where ‘Simon de suū.’ is quoted on pollutio nocturna. (These glosses will be discussed on another occasion. E. R.) Google Scholar

4 E. Rathbone in an unpublished lecture (Oxford 1939) and ‘John of Cornwall,’ RTAM 17 (1950) 51f. and nn.33-37. The identification of Jo. ti. has been suggested independently by Cheney, C. R., Bishops' Chanceries 13f. and by Professor J. C. Russell in a letter dated 24 April 1945.Google Scholar

5 Fols. 2va, 31ra, 80vb, 134ra, 136va, *138va, *178va, *181ra (iii), 183rb, *187va (ii) et passim. Google Scholar

6 Fols. 99rb, 196rb (on marriage), printed in RTAM 17, 51, where John's career and writings are discussed.Google Scholar

7 Fol. *129va. Master Nicholas de Aquila occurs as dean in several Chichester charters, cf. Chichester Chartulary (ed. Peckham, W D., Sussex Record Soc. 46; 1946) Nos. 28, 194, 196, 197, 201 (cf. 407), 302, 341; The Chartulary of the Priory of St. Pancras of Lewes (ed. Salzmann, L. F, Sussex Rec. Soc. 38; 1932) I, 110; cf. ibid. I, 65: ‘Nicholas son of Walter de Aquila’ (c. 1170). For his election to the bishopric see Dunstable Annals s.a. 1209, in Annales monastici III, 31; Annals, Oseney, ibid. IV, 54. On the Norman family L'Aigle cf. Cooper, G. M., ‘Some Accounts of Michelham Priory in Arlington,’ Sussex Archaeological Collections 6 (1853) 129f. — Nicholas would seem to have been a pluralist if he, and not another master of the same name was the schoolmaster of Avranches who opposed, c. 1197–8, any new election to fill that see while the case of the bishop-elect, William de Chemillé (who had been uncanonically transferred to Angers), was pending in Rome, cf. Innocent III, Po. 457, 454, 630 (PL 214, 419f. and 630; Coll. Gilb. 1.61, cf. Heckel, ZRG Kan. Abt. 29 [1940] 182f.; for William's case see Po. 108, 575; for his antecedents as archdeacon of Richmond see above, VI n.26).Google Scholar

7a For Omnis qui iuste cf. Repert. 23, also fol. Ir on natural law. A gloss quoting Vacarius on custom (fol. 4va, D. 11 c.4: ‘ Vac. dicit quod consuetudo populi in contrarium nitentis [?] tollit legem set non uincit ***,’ cf. Vac. 1.8 n.35; n.32 [p.18]; de Zulueta lxxvii) will be discussed elsewhere.Google Scholar

8 Placentinus fols. 137r, 137rb; Bulgarus, Martinus, Joannes Cremonensis fols. 107va, 137r, rb; Jo. Bassianus (Cremonensis) fol. 115vb.Google Scholar

9 Fols. *178vb, *187va (i, as pope); 183rb, *187va (ii-iv, Rolandus).Google Scholar

10 Fols. *187va (ii), *194rb, 215vb.Google Scholar

11 Fols. 31ra, 52rb, 80vb, 93vb, 133va, 140ra, *178vb. ‘scole H(uguccionis?)’ fol. 140rb.Google Scholar

12 Fols. 134ra, 136va, 181ra, 184va, *187va (ii, iii), *194rb.Google Scholar

13 Fol. 134ra: ‘arg. contra Cardinalem et papam Gregorium 8 (sic) antequam esset papa, qui dicebant omnes decimas dari intuitu personarum’; fol. *187va (ii-iv, ‘Albertinus’). For the use of arabic numerals cf. Repertorium 205 n.3.Google Scholar

14 Fol. 185r (‘secundum Bazan.’).Google Scholar

15 Fols. 31rb, 43vb, 48vb, 80va, 81ra, 94rb, 95va, 112va, 113vb, 121va, 122va, 123ra, 140ra, 168va, *169vb, *187va (ii-iv), *194rb.Google Scholar

16 Fols. 31rb (‘contra Jo. Fauentinum’), 32ra, 43vb, 48vb, 81ra, 113vb, 115vb, 122va, 128ra, 140ra, *165vb, 168va, *178vb, 196rb, 215vb (‘Rufinus aliter’).Google Scholar

17 Fols, 115ra, *154rb.Google Scholar

18 Fols. 165vb, *167ra. 217rb.Google Scholar

19 Fol. *165vb (with Gandulph).Google Scholar

20 Fols. 126rb, *201va.Google Scholar

21 Fols. 99va, 116ra, 131ra, 140va, *193ra, *194ra.Google Scholar

22 Fol. *198ra.Google Scholar

23 E.g. fols. 181ra ‘nec ego audeo concedere,’ contradicting Cardinalis; *181ra (ii), *184va. The gloss fol. *187va (i) says ‘Malo ergo dicere ***’ but is not signed.Google Scholar

24 Geometry fol. 216ra; classical authors fols, 2ra, 46ra (Cicero), 113ra (Horace), 23vb (Juvenal), 162va (Seneca) etc.; feudalism fol. *138va.Google Scholar

25 Fols. 71rb, *101rb, *164rb.Google Scholar

26 Fols. *44rb, *123rb, *138va, *173rb.Google Scholar

27 Fols. *44rb, 123rb, *129va (custom), *173r, *173v (rescripts).Google Scholar

28 Fol. *169vb.Google Scholar

29 Fols. 69rb, *129va.Google Scholar

30 Fol. *184va.Google Scholar

31 Fol. *178va et seqq. Google Scholar

32 Fols. 191-99; cf. Warner, G. F. and Gilson, J. P., Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Old Royal and King's Collections I (London 1921) 295; Kuttner, , Repertorium, 251f.; Ullmann, , Med. Papalism 191-3, 200f. (and Index s.v Quaest. London.); Cheney, , Bishops' Chanceries 13.Google Scholar

33 Fol. 197v: ‘Cancellarius legatus a domino papa per totam Angliam constitutus ***’.Google Scholar

34 Cf. Repertorium 252 n.3. Dr. Ullmann (op. cit. 153 n.4, 200) refers this to Archbishop Hubert Walter; but when Hubert became chancellor in 1199 he held no longer legatine authority, since Innocent III did not want to see the cumulation of the two politically incompatible offices repeated, cf. Brooke, , Engl. Church and the Papacy 221.Google Scholar

35 Fol. 195rb : ‘Rex Anglie cum a peregrinatione Ierosolimitana rediret ab imperatore Alemanie captus est ***’ and n.37.Google Scholar

36 Fol. 195rb-va; cf. Ullmann, , op. cit. 191; Rog. Hov. IV, 16, 21-3, 40f.; Paris, Matthew, Historia Anglorum (ed. Madden, F., Rolls Series; London 1866–9) II, 59f.; Chronica maiora (ed. Luard, H. R., R. S.; 1872–83) II, 421-2.Google Scholar

37 Fol. 195v; cf. Repertorium 252 and n.3 for the date (1192) of the incident referred to.Google Scholar

38 Fols. 193va, 195va, vb, 196ra, 197ra, rb.Google Scholar

39 Fols. 191ra, 195rb.Google Scholar

40 Fol. 191va (S. de derebi), probably also 191rb (S. de rebi). For Simon of Derby cf. Savage, H. E., The Great Register of Lichfield Cathedral Known as Magnum Registrum Album (William Salt Archaeological Society, Collections for a History of Staffordshire, 1924 [1926]) Nos. 173 (c. 1193), 114, 356 (before 1208); Registrum Antiquiss. Lincoln (above, I n.5) III, 400; V, 36; Oseney Cartulary (above, VI n.11) V, 66; London, Harleian, B. M. MS 3650, fols. 38r, 38v, 39r, 43v; Harl. 3868, fol. 15ra.Google Scholar

41 Fols. 191vb, 196rb, 195ra ‘ut in bro(cardo) magistri Simonis.’ Google Scholar

42 Cf. above, ch. VI at n.14ff. At the time the disputations of the Royal MS were held, the dean of York would not have been active in the schools.Google Scholar

43 Fols. 195ra, rb, 196ra. Cf. Kuttner, S., in Traditio 2, 494 n.9. A Master John of Kent witnesses a charter of Geoffrey, bishop-elect of Lincoln, , c. 1173/82 (Reg. Ant. Linc. II, 33). He or another of the same name was a justice at Northampton in June 1190 (B. M. Cotton MS Claud. D.xii. fol. 88). As clerk of Hubert Walter he was given the church of Appledore by Felix, prior of Dover (Lambeth MS 241, fol. 227v-228) and witnessed a number of the archbishop's charters (ibid. fol. 189v; Canterbury, Dean and Chapter Muniments, Reg. A, fol. 157v; Cambridge, University Library MS Ll.ii.15, fol. 7r-v; B. M. Harleian MS 391, fol. 105*) and three charters of Bishop William of London (B. M. Cotton MSS App. xxi, fol. 56v [twice] and Vesp. F. xv, fol. 185v). As chancellor of St. Paul's he attests two charters, cf. Gibbs, M., Early Charters of St. Paul (above, II n.35) No. 58 and Historical Manuscripts Commission, Ninth Report (London 1883) Appendix p. 42a, No. A 1521. He received a prebend from Stephen Langton in 1214, cf. Major, K., Acta Stephani Langton Cantuariensis archiepiscopi A.D. 1207–1228 (Canterbury and York Soc. 50; Oxford 1950) 17, but whether he ever belonged to Langton's household (Major, K., pp. xxxvii, 19, 47) remains uncertain.Google Scholar

45 Rushforth, G., ‘Magister Gregorius de mirabilibus urbis Romae ***,’ Journal of Roman Studies 9 (1919) 18, 58, cf. James, M. R., in Engl. Hist. Rev. 32 (1917) 554; Manitius, , Geschichte der lat. Lit. (above, V n.26) III, 250, 252.Google Scholar

46 Repertorium 206 n.1 and below, ch. IX n.4.Google Scholar

47 Future studies will tell whether other writings can be attributed to them, especially to Simon of Southwell and John of Tynemouth. Cf. Repert. 25 for the siglum S. occurring in glosses of the Anglo-Norman school on the Decretum, Durham MS C.ii.1; ibid. 251 for gl. Vac. 4.36 n.5 (‘secundum Simonem’); and Traditio 6, 349 n.40, for glosses of an English Master Jo. on the Appendix Conc. Lat. in Leipzig, Univ. MS 1242. As to the Decretum in Paris, B. N. MS 3905B, the glosses of Master tv. (ty., tu., cf. Repert. 40) prove upon reexamination to belong to a somewhat earlier canonist of the French school.Google Scholar

48 Above, ch. I at n.19; cf. below, Appendix A.Google Scholar

1 Chron. Evesham 126.Google Scholar

2 Ibid. 267. The late Kantorowicz, Hermann, Bractonian Problems (Glasgow 1941) 17 n.2 challenged the reading ‘apud Exoniam et Oxoniam,’ but see Powicke, F M. and Emden, A. B. in their revised edition of Rashdall, H., The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages (Oxford 1936) III, 18 n.1; Richardson, H. G., ‘Azo, Drogheda and Bracton,’ Engl. Hist. Rev. 59 (1944) 41 n.3.Google Scholar

3 For the English cathedral schools cf. Edwards, K., op. cit. (above, VI n.14) 187ff., 187 at n.3. Further details will be given in E. Rathbone's forthcoming book (above, I n.1).Google Scholar

4 Cf. Rathbone, E., RTAM 17, 50f. and below, nn.32, 42.Google Scholar

5 Above, ch. IV nn.19-25.Google Scholar

6 Gir. Camb. Opp. I, 93; cf. Hunt, R. W, ‘English Learning in the Late Twelfth Century’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Soc.4 19 (1936) 21.Google Scholar

7 Richardson, H. G., ‘The Oxford Law School under John,’ Law Quart. Rev. 57 (1941) 327f. and The Schools of Northampton in the Twelfth Century,' Engl. Hist. Rev. 56 (1941) 595ff. Cheney, , Bishops' Chanceries 126f. is, however, not convinced that the Baltimore formulary (above, III n.6) is based on a collection made at Northampton, as Mr. Richardson suggests.Google Scholar

8 Ed. Ilarino da Milano (above, II n.17) 527 §19, cf. Introd. 89.Google Scholar

9 Oxford, Oriel College MS 53; cf. Repertorium 199ff., 295; Holtzmann, , ‘Die Register Papst Alexanders’ (above, I n.16) 19ff.; ‘Über eine Ausgabe ***.’ (above, I n.9) 23 Nos. 29, 30c; Kuttner, , Traditio 6, 347 n.25; above, IV n.28. The origin of the Oriel Quaestiones (Repert. 249) will be discussed elsewhere.Google Scholar

10 Hunt, , loc. cit. 24 and 27.Google Scholar

11 Gesta abbatum monasterii sancti Albani (ed. Riley, H. T., Rolls Series; London 1867–9) I, 194–6. For Alexander Nequam's views on the sources of civil and canon law see Kantorowicz, H., ‘A Medieval Grammarian on the Sources of Law,’ Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 15 (1936–7) 25-47.Google Scholar

12 Bulaeus, C. E., Historia Universitatis Parisiensis II (Paris 1665) 304f. The letter is in Chart. Univ. Par. I, 40 No. 38. — Warin, A Master, officialis of the archdeacon of Bedford, witnessed acts of St. Hugh of Lincoln c. 1193-8, cf. Cheney, , op. cit. 145, n.6.Google Scholar

13 Douai MS 592 (cf. Repert. 36) fol. 93r, to C.2 q.6 c.29. But since this canon is taken from civil law (Dig. 49.4.1 and 3), gar. may also stand for Garnerius (Irnerius).Google Scholar

14 De Zulueta, , Liber paup. xvi f.Google Scholar

15 Petr. Bles. ep. 62 (PL 207, 185).Google Scholar

16 Oseney Cartulary IV, 431; cf. above, VI n.11.Google Scholar

17 Gerald of Wales, preface to Speculum ecclesie. This anecdote occurs in the damaged part of the preface and has hitherto been known only from the somewhat misleading paraphrase of Antony Wood, cf. Holland, T. E., Collectanea (Oxford Hist. Soc. 16; 1890) II, 177; Rashdall, , Universities (2nd ed.) III, 21 n.2 and App. II, 476f.; de Zulueta, , Lib. paup. xviii. We wish to thank Dr. R. W Hunt for the permission to use the correct text which he has been able to establish from transcripts of extracts in various MSS in the Bodleian Library. and hopes to publish shortly, with a discussion of the implied allusion to Cato and Justinian.Google Scholar

18 Gir. Camb. Opp. II, 344f. On Hubert's Latin see also ibid. III, 254.Google Scholar

19 Pipe Rolls 5-8 Ric. I (Pipe Roll Soc. N. S. 3; 5-7; 1927–30) pp. 122, 88f., 142, 70, respectively.Google Scholar

20 Menkonis Chronicon (ed. Weiland, L., MGH Script. 23; 1874) 524, 531. Cf. de Zulueta, , Lib. paup. xvii f.Google Scholar

21 Rashdall, , Universities III, 33 and n.1; Hunt, , Engl. Learning 30.Google Scholar

22 Opp. I, 72–3, cf. I, 413.Google Scholar

23 Ibid. III, 228.Google Scholar

24 Ibid. III, 218, 265-98 passim, 307, 323. Cf. Cheney, , Bishops' Chanceries 12-14.Google Scholar

25 Menkonis Chron. 524: ‘*** Parisius, Aurelianis et Oxonie audierunt et ex ore magistrorum glosaverunt Oxonie etiam Decreta, Decretales, Librum Pauperum necnon alios libros canonici iuris et legalis, vigilias dividendo scripserunt, audierunt et glosaverunt.’ Google Scholar

26 At Bologna, the lectura reportata was in the form of a lemmatic commentary, cf. e.g. Meijers, E. M., ‘Sommes, lectures et commentaires,’ Atti del Congresso Internazionale di diritto romano, Bologna 1933 (Pavia 1934) I, 463, 466ff.Google Scholar

27 Coll. Tanner, cf. above I n.19, VII n.48. The references to decretals in the glosses of the Vacarian school, which puzzled the learned editor of the Liber pauperum (cf. Introd. xxvii, lxxxvi, xci n.11), are discussed below, Appendix A (III).Google Scholar

28 B. M. Royal MS 9.E. vii, fol. 196vb (cf. Repert. 251 n.2); fol. 198ra.Google Scholar

29 Professor Cheney, however, who stresses the fact that the prior of St. Frideswide's was well known as a delegate in other parts of England (Bishops' Chanceries 126), would perhaps not admit the argument.Google Scholar

30 Ann. monast. IV, 54; III, 31.Google Scholar

31 Ibid. III, 66 s.a. 1221.Google Scholar

32 The Cartulary of the Abbey of Eynsham (ed. Salter, H. E., Oxford Hist. Soc. 49; 1907) I, 72; Cheney, , op. cit. 13.Google Scholar

33 Cheney, , op. cit. 14 (cf. pp. 20, 158) gives 1198 as the earliest date, but there are several charters which might be earlier. A study of Walter's, Hubert acta (John witnessed at least twenty of them, Cheney, loc. cit.) is desirable.Google Scholar

34 Opp. III, 274.Google Scholar

35 Ibid. 292, 295f.Google Scholar

36 Oseney Cartul. IV, 22 (1206); Reg. Antiquiss. Lincoln II, 311-12 (1215); III, 52 (before 1208); IV, 136 (c. 1210), 202 (1206–14). Cf. Cheney, , op. cit. 14 n.3.Google Scholar

37 Goodman, A. W., The Chartulary of Winchester Cathedral (Winchester 1927) 208.Google Scholar

38 Rotuli Hug. de Welles (above, I n.5) I, 129, 147, 170, 172, 175; II, 2; Ann. monast. III, 66; Cheney, , loc. cit. n.4. John's successor, Master Matthew, appears first on 2 August 1221, Rot. Hug. II, 192.Google Scholar

39 Oxford, Bodleian MS Laud. lat. 17, fol. 224vb. In his account of this formulary, Professor Cheney (op. cit. 129) does not mention the connection between Robert and John indicated in the text.Google Scholar

40 Chron. Evesham 189f. (‘adversarius’) and 151f. (‘vir facundissimus et in utroque iure, civili videlicet et canonico, apprime eruditus’) : Cf. Pollock, and Maitland, , Hist. of Engl. Law I, 116; Ullmann, , Med. Papalism 13 (the identification, suggested ibid. 12 n.1, with Master Robertus de Anglia, one of the founders of the school of Vicenza [cf. Trad. 1, 326 n.32] is not warranted). The pope's quip on that occasion, about Robert and his masters having drunk too much beer, does not necessarily imply a reflection on the quality of English learning but repeats only a standing Bolognese joke; cf. e.g. Ricardus Anglicus, preface to the Distinctiones : ‘*** resistentes atramento uelut anglicus inebriabo’ (MS Vat. lat. 2691, fol. 1).Google Scholar

41 Cf. Rathbone, E., RTAM 17, 50–53.Google Scholar

42 The principal references are given by Cheney, , op. cit. 13, cf. 79 n.2.Google Scholar

43 Lichfield Magnum Registrum Album (above, VII n.40) No. 252.Google Scholar

44 Epp. Cant. 407; Gir. Camb. Opp. III, 218, 300; ibid. 203, 216-7 Cf. Cheney, , op. cit. 13. Gerald's text, ‘generalis eiusdem officialis in Anglia relictus’ (III, 203) can be added to the instances, quoted by Fournier, P, Les officialités au moyen âge (Paris 1880) 23-4, for officiales acting also as vicars general; such instances do not invalidate, however, the observations of Fournier, Chanoine Edouard, Les origines du vicaire général (Paris 1922) 72ff., 129, on the different origin of the two offices.Google Scholar

45 Po. 395 (PL 214, 381; Bern. Compost. 5.13.3; shortened in X 5.20.9).Google Scholar

46 Stenton, D. M., The Earliest Lincolnshire Assize Rolls (Lincoln Record Soc. 22; 1926) 8 No. 51.Google Scholar

47 Cheney loc. cit. and B. M. Harleian MS 391, fol. 105*; Le Neve, , Fasti Eccl. Anglic. (2nd ed. Oxford 1854) I, 581, citing Cotton MS Tib. C.ix (Waltham Register) fol. 143 for c. 1205. The dates of two acts witnessed by Simon as treasurer of Lichfield are given as ?1200 and c. 1200–5 respectively by the editors (Cheney, , op. cit. 257-8, and Foster, Canon, Reg. Antiquiss. Linc. I, 254; cf. Cheney 11); but in 1202 he was still canon of Lincoln (see preceding note) and between 1201 and 1203 two of his co-signatories, Master Honorius and John of Tynemouth, were frequently out of the country, cf. above, VI nn.27ff.; Gir. Camb. Opp. III, 265ff. —Cf. further below, IX n.76.Google Scholar

48 Lichfield Magn. Reg. Alb. No. 464, p. 222; cf. Major, K., Acta Steph. Langton (above, VII n.43) No. 61.Google Scholar

49 Cf. above, VII n.22 and below, Appendix D (fol. 198ra).Google Scholar

50 Below, Appendix D (fol. 167ra).Google Scholar

51 Ibid. (fols. 193ra, 194ra); above, VII, n.21.Google Scholar

1 Repertorium 204–6. The Paris MS belonged to the paroisse de Sainct-Jehan de Caen in 1438, cf. Kohler, Ch., Catalogue des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Sainte-Geneviève (Paris 1893–8) I, 206. For its glosses on Gratian see Traditio 1, 286. Caillemer, , op. cit. (above, II n.15) 195 n.3 believes that Caen may have been a center of legal studies in the 12th cent.Google Scholar

2 Repert. 206 (Sum. Prima primi); Ste.-Genev. MS 342, fol. 186ra: ‘*** lex tamen anglicana punit si interficiatur non hostis’ (collated by Mlle. Vielliard).Google Scholar

3 Ed. James, (Oxford 1914) p. 145. Sum. Quamvis leges has the better reading ‘*** post primi hominis creationem.’ Google Scholar

4 Repert. 205 n.1. Gre. is certainly not Gregory the Great, cf. the quotation from the Summa Animal est substantia (Sum. Bamb.) in Kuttner, , Kanonistische Schuldlehre von Gratian bis auf die Dekretalen Gregors IX. (Studi e Testi 64; Città del Vaticano 1935) 351 n.1; on Huguccio's opponents ibid. 353 n.1.Google Scholar

5 Above, VII nn. 44-5.Google Scholar

6 The possibility of English origin of the gloss compositions in Worcester MS F.122 and Lambeth MS 105 (cf. Traditio 1, 313 n.22) needs further investigation; the Lambeth MS contains in its second layer of glosses frequent references to the teaching of Master Petrus Brito, in the third person (‘p. Bi dicit’; ‘p. Bi intelligit’), cf. Ulimann, , Med. Papalism 209; possibly a reportatio of glosses of this master, even as in the Apparatus In quibusdam libris of Paris, B. N. MS lat. 15398, fol. 204-279 (cf. Trad. 1, 317 n.54).Google Scholar

7 Above, ch. III n.6.Google Scholar

8 Above, ch. VI n.74.Google Scholar

9 Cf. Repert. 36 for the Western origin of the glosses (set b).Google Scholar

10 Repert. 166f.; for Western origin cf. Gillmann, F., Zur Inventarisierung der kanonistischen Handschriften aus der Zeit von Gratian bis Gregor IX. (Appendix to the reprint of his ‘Des Johannes Galensis Apparat ***’ [AKKR 118, 174-222]; Mainz 1938) 64–6; for the inscription, ‘Inceptio m. Willehelmi,’ cf. Heckel, in ZRG Kan. Abt. 29 (1940) 121 n.1. A Master Wil. or Gwil. is repeatedly quoted by Gilbertus Anglicus in the glosses to his own collection, cf. Repert. 327 n.2; Trad. 1, 337 n.42.Google Scholar

11 Ullmann, , Med. Papalism 208 (‘Summa Cantabrigiensis’).Google Scholar

12 Schulz, F., History of Roman Legal Science (Oxford 1946) 142f. — In the passages quoted by Dr. Ullmann from the Cambridge MS (op. cit. 146, 180, 196) the textual differences from other MSS of Ecce vicit leo are not greater than, e.g., the variations among the MSS of the Summa of Rufinus (cf. pp. xii, xxxiv, xxxviii-xl and the apparatus criticus of Singer's edition), or of the glosses of Ricardus Anglicus on Comp. I (cf. Gillmann, , in AKKR 107 [1927] 618).Google Scholar

13 Thomas of Marlborough, who, after having taught at Oxford, upon the pope's advice attended classes at Bologna in 1205 between hearings of the Evesham case (cf. above, II n.2), cannot be counted in the same category.Google Scholar

14 For the various attempted identifications see Wahrmund, L., in his edition of Richard's Ordo (Quellen zur Gesch. des römisch-kanon. Processes II, 3; Innsbruck 1915) xiii-xvi: ‘blosse Vermutung oder gar Fabel’; but Richard Grant (Wethershed), chancellor of Lincoln (1221–9) and archbishop of Canterbury (1229–31) is still mentioned as a possibility by Glorieux, P., Répertoire des maîtres en théologie de Paris au XIIIe siècle (Paris 1933–4) I, 1280f. The origin of the confusion with Richard of Middleton has been traced by Hocedez, R., Richard de Middleton, sa vie, ses oeuvres, sa doctrine (Spicilegium sacrum Lovaniense 7; 1925) 14, 16f.Google Scholar

15 Cheney, C. R., English Synodalia of the Thirteenth Century (Oxford 1941) 52ff. Russell, J. C., Dictionary of Writers of Thirteenth Century England (London etc. 1936) 112, 136 suggests with good reason that the identification of the canonist with Richard Poore rests on a confusion of the latter with St. Richard de Wych, who had had legal training before he became chancellor of Oxford (c. 1235), chancellor of Archbishop Edmund (c. 1237–40), and bishop of Chichester (1244–53; cf. Bokyng's, Ralph Vita of c. 1270 in Acta Sanctorum Apr. I, 286), and to whom later legend ascribed years of study in exemplary poverty at Bologna and Paris (Capgrave's, John Vita, ibid. 278b); the legend being thereafter transferred to Master Richard ‘the poor,’ bishop of Chichester 1215–7 Google Scholar

16 Cf. Repertorium 223 n.1; the identification has since been widely accepted.Google Scholar

17 Gesta abbatum mon. s. Alb. 307, naming as Richard's companion a Master Thomas of Tynemouth; Dublin, Trinity College MS 275, pp. 169-183. Cf. Russell, , Dictionary 111ff. and, with hesitation, Richardson, , in Law Quart. Rev. 57, 323; Kuttner, , in Traditio 1, 284 n.25.Google Scholar

18 Gilb. 3.1.1; 2 Comp. 3.1.1 (X 3.2.7).Google Scholar

19 Cf. e.g. Trad. 1, 326 n.32 for Rodulphus Anglicus and Robertus de Anglia; the obit list of S. Maria del Reno in Bologna (cited ibid.) contains still another Robert (d. 1254) and one Rainaldus Anglicus.Google Scholar

20 The first of these was cited in Repert. 231, but with wrong classification.Google Scholar

21 Examples below, Appendix E : Dist. 1-3, C. 16 qq. 4-5 (descriptive); Dist. 75, C. 18 q.2 (discussions), and passim for query and answer style.Google Scholar

22 Anticlaud. 2.1.7-21 (PL 210, 498f.), cf. Warner, and Gilson, , Cat. Royal MSS I, 336. The Summa omits vv. 9, 14-15 of the original and changes ‘indocta docere’ (v.8) to ‘in iure docere’ (v.2 above). Slight variants in the MSS of the Summa have not been noted here.Google Scholar

23 C.1 q.1: ‘Queritur an possint bona spiritualia uendi ***,’ D(ublin MS 275, p.) 171b; q.2: ‘An sit ob ingressum fas ecclesie dare quicquam ***’; q.4: ‘Criminibus patris maculetur an inscia proles’; q.5: ‘An patris ob munus promotus iure ministret ***,’ (ibid.) etc. Further examples in the following notes and below, Appendix E, also for rhymed prose (C.25 q.1).Google Scholar

24 ‘lincoliensis’ D 183b; ‘lineosis’ Rein MS 86, fol. 5v; ‘linconensis’ Zwettl MS 162, fol. 70r (for the separate tradition of the distichs in this MS see below, at n.66).Google Scholar

25 Dist. 92 : ‘Additur quod cantandum sit plus corde quam ore, vt in con. later. Cum in sacris (c.3)’; C. 10 q.3: ‘Quanta dari debet sinodalis summa per annum? Resp. duo solidi nomine cathedratici, vt in con. later. Cum apostolus (c.4) extra. tit. de censibus (1 Comp. 3.34.6).’ D 171a, 174a. The references to Comp. I are never given as ‘extra I.’ (the statement to the contrary in Repert. 231 was based on a misunderstanding, see note 27).Google Scholar

26 C. 15 q.1: ‘Queritur an quod agit furibundo sit reputandum (leg. imputandum). R(espondeo) cum magistro hugone simpliciter quod non, nec admitto quorumdam distinctionem ***,’ D 175b. For Huguccio's doctrine cf. Kanonistische Schuldlehre (above, n.4) 107f.Google Scholar

27 Also ‘dic ut distinxi ex. j(nfra) e(adem) ***’ (D 175a), misinterpreted as reference to ‘extra I,’ in Repert. 231.Google Scholar

28 E.g. Dist. 17 : ‘Cuius auctoritate fiant concilia distingue ut eadem distinctione scripsi sufficienter’ (D 169; cf. Richard's Distinctiones, MS Vat. lat. 2691, fol. 1v: ‘Concilium generale uel uniuersale quod fit speciali auctoritate domini pape; particulare uel speciale; episcopale uel singulare ***’); Dist. 19 : ‘Quam uim optinent decretales soluo per distinctionem hic extra. positam’ (D 169; cf. Dist. MS Vat. ibid.: ‘Decretalis epistola specialis, que dirigitur ad unam prouinciam hec non trahuntur ad consequentiam, nisi prouincia uel persona exempli causa apponatur; generalis, que omnibus dirigitur tenenda. hec trahit ad consequentiam ***’). More examples below, App. E.Google Scholar

29 Repert. 224f. — Teetaert, A., ‘Commentationes ***’ (above, V n.25) 241 notes that in Paris, B. N. MS lat. 14859, fol. 390v (a penitential book from St. Victor) there is a quotation, ‘Ricardus dicit in summa decretorum ***.’; but we find that over the R a small S has been written as if by correction (=Sicardus).Google Scholar

30 See App. E, for example C. 25 (continuatio), C.18 q.2 (paragraphi).Google Scholar

31 Oxford, Bodleian MS Selden supr. 87, fol. 159r-181v; Douai MS 659, fol. 7r-25v; add B. M. Royal MS 10.C.iii, fol. 4r-48v.Google Scholar

32 Repert. 224 n.1.Google Scholar

33 Ibid. 225f.Google Scholar

34 Loc. cit. supra n.17.Google Scholar

35 This would require the reading ‘lincolniense opus,’ an emendation which is ruled out by the meter.Google Scholar

36 Hunt, R. W, ‘English Learning ***.’ (above, VIII n.6) 21.Google Scholar

37 Ordo c.6 : ‘Deo et vobis B. et C. conqueror ego R. de G. qui iniuste detinet ecclesiam sancti Petri de Collig. (al. Collingna, Coll’.) mihi assignatam' (ed. Wahrmund, p. 4, cf. xx n.1). Similar Latin forms occur for several places, e.g. Cooling, Kent; Collingham, Notts.; Cowling, Yorks. West Riding.Google Scholar

38 E.g. Rich. Dist. D. 1 pr. (on natural law), D. 19 pr. (on decretals, cf. n.28), etc.Google Scholar

39 Cf. Caillemer, , op. cit. (above, II n.15) 189; Wahrmund, , ed. cit. xxii-iii; Fitting, H., Ueber die sogenannte Turiner Institutionenglosse (Halle 1870) 73f.Google Scholar

40 The passage from Tancred's Ordo has been frequently quoted, cf. Wahrmund, , loc. cit.; the method of quaedam compilatio which Richard imitated was of course that of the Decretum, not of the Liber pauperum, as de Zulueta (p.li) suggests.Google Scholar

41 Above, IV at n.10. The same method is found in the Summa Elegantius, the Summa Quoniam omissis (above V, n.20), the Rhetorica ecclesiastica (cf. E. Ott, in SB Vienna 125 [1891] 95), the Ordo Olim, etc.Google Scholar

42 Ordo c. 37 ‘*** secundum Ascelinum’ (ed. Wahrmund, p. 86, variants in n. 25; interpreted as reference to Azo in the Introduction, p. xxiv). On Ascelinus see de Zulueta, , Lib. paup. xx n.29, xxxiii, cxiii.Google Scholar

43 M(ontecassino MS 396, p.) 191a-247a; Z(wettl MS 162, fol.) 145ra-173ra. Cf. Kuttner, , in Traditio 1, 321 n.4 and 323 n.18 (xii); Ullmann, , Med. Papalism 211–5. (Z reads at the beginning: ‘*** uarie quest. sol. fieri’.) Google Scholar

44 Above, VI n.67 Google Scholar

45 See the list below, Appendix E (II).Google Scholar

46 E.g. de continentia tit. 8 qq.3-5, de lapsis 9.6, de iure patronatus 23.8-11 (ibid.) Google Scholar

47 E.g. de iure naturali 1.1; de iure patr. 23.1-3 (ibid.). For Simon's influence on the Summa Omnis qui iuste cf. Repert. 149, 197 Google Scholar

48 For opposition see e.g. de iure patr. 23.11 (below, App. E).Google Scholar

49 For example, above, VI nn.43-44. On the renting of matresses by the students in Paris, the question is formulated in Sum. Circa ius nat. almost verbatim as in Sum. Omnis qui iuste (above VI, n.82; M 215b, Z 156va). On a problem of marriage, ‘magister h(ugo) de sancto victore’ is quoted by both authors in the same words (Schulte, , SB Vienna 68 [1871] 46; M 235b). Cf. also n.54 below; examples could be given from almost every title.Google Scholar

50 Traditio 6, 349 nn.38-9.Google Scholar

51 For Omnis qui iuste this was already recognized by Schulte, , SB Vienna 68, 50f.; for Circa ius nat. see examples below, nn. 52, 61, and App.E. Sometimes the references are helpful for the reconstruction of the original papal letters, e.g. tit. 32 de enormitate delicti: ‘*** quod non debet uir conuerti nisi uxor similiter conuertatur, aliter autem si factum fuerit, si et consensu mulieris ingressus fuerit, reuocatur ad thorum illius, vt in ex. Intelleximus’ (M 235a, Z 168ra), which shows that X 3.32.1 (JL 13946+13948-9; cf. Lohmann, ZRG Kan. Abt. 22 [1933] 73) is part of JL 13950, thus confirming a marginal note to App. 26.24 (JL 13948) in Mansi 22, 372.Google Scholar

52 M 208b (de appell. tit.11) : ‘*** nam et ordinarius recusari potest, et deligatas (sic) eodem modo potest recusari, vt in ex. Ad aures.’ Lucius III, JL 14965-6 (X 2.28.36).Google Scholar

53 De perplexitate (tit.3) : ‘*** Albertinus solebat dicere’ (M 195a, Z 147ra). Cf. Kanonist. Schuldlehre (above, n.4) 267 n.1.Google Scholar

54 De ecclesiis de nouo edificandis (tit.35) : ‘*** Item quid si in ecclesia aliquis uirum (?) occidat, ut contigit in cantu(a)riensi? Et dicunt quod huiusmodi sanguinis effusio ecclesiam non polluit set consecrat’ (M 239a). Cf. Sum. Omnis qui iuste to De cons. D.1 c.19 v. homicidio : ‘Quid si in ecclesia martir occidatur ut in cantuariensi ecclesia contigit? Dicunt quod talis ecclesia non est consecranda quia huiusmodi ***.’ (Rouen MS 743, fol. 134rb).Google Scholar

55 De excommunicatione (tit.20) : ‘.*** si enim parisiensis solus nouit aliquem esse excommunicatum ***’ (M 214a); and cf. nn.49 (culcitre), 56, 60.Google Scholar

56 De rescriptis (tit.26) : '*** Item quid si causa committatur G. archid. parisiensis ecclesie et sunt tres in eadem quorum quilibet uocatur g. : numquid expirat iurisdictio ? Ad primum dicimus quod si possit de persona (de)legati constare cui scil. sit demandatum, mandatum erit ualidum (M 224b).Google Scholar

57 Jo Sar. epp. 182 and 174 (PL 199, 182 and 165; c. 1166); Cartulaire de l'église de Notre-Dame de Paris (ed. Guérard, , Paris 1850) III, 439 (1168); I, 45 (1191), and I, 397-8; II, 9, 176, 198, 293, 311, 339, 503; III, 358, 386 (for years in between); Chart. Univ. Par. I, 50 No. 50 (1180).Google Scholar

58 Guermundus, , c. 1147-73 (Cartul. N.D. I, 40, 389; II, 9, 176, 339, 360, 503; III, 358, 439); Gratianus, , c. 1177–78 (ibid. II, 293, 503).Google Scholar

59 The following observations are based on collations kindly supplied by Dr. Ullmann, who has examined Z in detail and generously put at our disposal an unpublished note of his. We are also indebted to Abbé Fransen for several collations.Google Scholar

60 De perplex. (tit.3); ‘*** in ecclesia parisiensi in ecclesia caporiensi’ (sic; M 194b); ‘*** in ecclesia bononiensi in ecclesia mutinensi’ (Z 146vb).Google Scholar

61 De elect. (tit.7) ‘*** sicut ergo tenet electio ab omnibus uel a maiori parte facta, vt in con (cilio) l(ateranensi) Cum in cunctis, expresse hoc colligitur ex quodam c(apitulo) alex. iii. Causam’ (M 197b); the references (3 Conc. Lat. 3 and JL 14070) changed to ‘ut ex. de elect. Cum in cunctis ex quodam cap. alex. iii. de elect. et el. pot. Causam’ in Z 148ra (1 Comp. 1.4.16, 17). — De lapsis (tit.9) : ‘*** etiam si conuicti fuerint uel confessi, poterit dispensari, vt c. alex. iii. Licet preter’ (M 199b: JL 14091); changed to ‘ex. de iudiciis, Aut (sic) si clerici’ in Z 149ra (1 Comp. 2.1.6). — De conuictis (tit.12) : ‘ item alex. iii. dicit laicos non posse admitti vt in ex. Licet preter’ (M 204b); changed to ‘ex. de iudic. De cetero’ in Z 151rb (1 Comp. 2.1.7). — De spoliatis (tit.14) : ‘*** .restitutionem petere potest, vt in ex. In litteris’ (M 206b); reference (JL 14219) changed to ‘ex. de restit. exspol. Ex litteris’ in Z 152rb (1 Comp. 2.9.5). Elsewhere M and Z agree in their references.Google Scholar

62 Z 148ra : ‘Item queritur si patronus alicuius ecclesie semet elegerit an possit. Dicitur quod non, ut ex. t. de iure patronatus, Per nostras’ (Po. 275; Gilb. 3.24.3). Dr. Ullmann points this out.Google Scholar

63 The contents of Zwettl MS 162 are listed in Traditio 1, 323 n.18. Of other MSS, only the following contain more than one work: Vat. lat. 2691 (Dist. and Ordo, cf. Repert. 223, 225), Douai 644 (the same, ibid. 222, 225), Avranches 149 (Brocarda and App. Comp. I, cf. Trad. 1, 299 n.40 and 312 n.20) Google Scholar

64 Trad 1, 323 n.18 (i); beg. ‘Materia auctoris in hoc opere.’ Google Scholar

65 Ibid. (vii, viii, x).Google Scholar

66 Ibid. (v). The opening notabile is Prov. 30.33 as quoted by St. Gregory to Augustine of England (D. 4 c.6); another collection of Notabilia (B.M. MS Addit. 18325, cf. Repert. 235) begins with the same proverb, and Simon of Apulia quoted it in his quarrel with Honorius (Rog. Hov. IV, 53; the text as printed, ‘Vehementer emungit qui sanguinem ejicit,’ would seem to be corrupt).Google Scholar

67 The terms argumenta and notabilia were used interchangeably for the same literary species (cf. Repert. 3, 233) as distinct from casus; the emendation proposed for Richard's text in Repert. 224 (‘argumenta decretalium,’ interpreted as a reference to his Casus Comp. I) cannot be defended.Google Scholar

68 See preceding note; MSS of the Casus are listed in Repert. 398. Abbé Fransen kindly informs us that the MS of Munich (MS lat. 16083, fol. 36rb-52va) has a contemporary rubric, ‘Casus mag(ist)ri Ricardi,’ and concludes with distichs in which the author admits his weakness for versification (cf. above, at n. 22ff.) : ‘Ad solitum suspiro metrum, ne deserat ortum/Ortolanus, equus prelia, mergus aquas/ ***’ etc.Google Scholar

69 Repert. 225.Google Scholar

70 Sum. quaest. tit.3 ‘Queri solet utrum summus pontifex utrumque gladium habeat, scil. materialem et spiritualem’ (M 196-197a, Z 147vb-148ra) has been discussed by Ullmann, , Med. Papalism 211ff. The answer is in the negative, even as in Richard's generale ‘arg. de iurisdictione distincta’ to 1 Comp. 4.18.7 (printed from the Apparatus of Tancred — who wrongly assigns it to Laurentius Hispanus — by Schulte, , SB Vienna 66 [1870] 85 and Gillmann, AKKR 105 [1925] 541 n.2; cf. ibid. 107 [1927] 647 n.2, also Ullmann, , op. cit. 145). Richard published this both in the Apparatus and the Brocarda. Google Scholar

71 Sum. quaest. 9.3 de lapsis; contra gl. to 1 Comp. 4.6.7, Sum. brev. and Dist. to D.50 (see below, Appendix E).Google Scholar

72 E.g. on the release from the oath of fealty, Sum. brev. C.15 q.6; contra gl. to 1 Comp. 5.6.7 (ibid.).Google Scholar

73 Gesta abbat. s. Alb. I, 307 Google Scholar

74 Cf. n.42 above. When older bibliographers have Ricardus Anglicus teaching for some time at Oxford (references in Wahrmund's ed. of the Ordo, p.xv) this is part of the confusion with the career of St. Richard of Chichester (Acta Sanct. Apr. I, 286, cf. above, n.15).Google Scholar

75 Ann. Dunstapl. in Ann. monast. III, 28; cf. Russell, , Dict. of Writers 112.Google Scholar

76 References in Russell, , ibid. 112f.; also Major, K., Acta Steph. Langton No. 37 (where Richard de Mores and Simon of Southwell, treasurer of Lichfield, are among the witnesses of an act of Hubert Walter), No. 54 (cf. Russell 113a n.2); one may note further Richard's law suit with Moses the Jew, Select Pleas from the Exchequer of the Jews A.D. 1220–1284 (ed. Rigg, J. M., Selden Soc. 15; London 1902) 4-5, and his activity as ‘magister et procurator’ of a certain Leodegarius Piparde, before 1219, Rotuli Hug. de Welles I, 109.Google Scholar

77 Ann. monast. HI, 44. Since he was back in England by 1217, he cannot be identified with Ricardus Anglicus, a regent master in theology at Paris in 1218, Chart. Univ. Par. I, 85.Google Scholar

78 Ann. monast. III, 158. This excludes identification with the ‘magister Ricardus anglicus’ entered under 15 September (no year) in Trombelli's obit list of S. Maria del Reno, Bologna (reprinted in Sarti, and Fattorini, , De claris archigymnasii Bononiensis professoribus [2nd ed. Bologna, 1888–96] II, 287).Google Scholar

79 For a list of his writings cf. Traditio 1, 289 n.52.Google Scholar

80 On the two redactions see ibid.; also Kuttner, , in Miscellanea Giovanni Mercati (Studi e Testi 121-6; Città del Vaticano 1946) V, 619–20 and nn. 11, 12; Traditio 6, 350 n.52.Google Scholar

81 Cf. for example Sang. 5.4.7: Alan. 2.3.1; Sang. 5.11.2-3: Alan. 2.3.2-3 (same order); Sang. 9.5 (‘Idem’ i.e. Alexander III; actually Ps.-Hormisda JK+867) : Alan. 4.95 (‘Alexander iii.’); Sang. 7.147: Alan. 6.12 [6.3.2; 2nd. ed. 6.6.1] (cf. Kuttner, , ‘La réserve papale du droit de canonisation.’ Rev. hist. de droit franc. et étr. 4 17 [1938] 179f., 213f.), etc.Google Scholar

82 Cf. e.g. the hypothesis advanced by Ullmann, W, ‘A Scottish Charter and Its Place in Medieval Canon Law,’ Juridical Review 61 (1949) 232, regarding the collection of Durham MS C.iii.3, fol. 123r-158r.Google Scholar

83 Ch. VII, at n.5.Google Scholar

84 Trad. 1, 289. Dr. Ullmann, in denying Alan's authorship (Med. Papalism 150 n.1), must have misunderstood the conclusive arguments set forth in Trad. loc. cit. n.52. If further arguments were needed, one may point to the fact that in a gloss on his own compilation (Alan. 1.20.1 [1.16.1] v. non intendimus, MS Vercelli lxxxix, fol. 65rb) Alan refers precisely to the doctrines of App. Ius nat. which Dr. Ullmann discusses: ‘*** quod papa est iudex ordinarius omnium hominum de omni negotio, et sufficienter probauimus .xcvi. Si duo in glosa. Alii tamen contra ***’ For Alanus as decretist cf. also Repert. 43, 53.Google Scholar