Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 July 2016
I wish to add some details to my paper published in this Bulletin last year and also make a few corrections.
Seven additional MSS have been examined.
(1) MSS of Form A:
Cc Cambridge, Corpus Christi College Libr. 441, pages 37-134;
Ci Cambridge, University Libr. Ii.6.18, fols. 3r-129v;
Ck Cambridge, University Libr. Kk.6.1, the whole MS, fols. 1r-97v;
H Paris, Bibl, Nat. lat. 10691, the whole MS, fols. 1r-96r;
Tu Tübingen, Deposit from the Prussian State Libr. of Berlin lat. fol, 212, fols. 56r-65r;
U Paris, University Libr. 1247, fols. 10r-33r.
1 ‘The “Poenitentiale” of Robert of Flamborough,’ Traditio 16 (1960) 541–556.Google Scholar
2 See art. cit. 547 nn. 35–37. Hence my criticism of Dietterle and Kuttner in n. 35 needs to be modified.Google Scholar
3 ‘Pierre de Roissy and Robert of Flamborough,’ Traditio 2 (1944) 492–9, esp. 493, 498. It is in the second, longer edition of his Manuale that Peter copied so much from Robert. On the two redactions of Peter's work see Kennedy, V. L., ‘The Handbook of Master Peter Chancellor of Chartres,’ Mediaeval Studies 5 (1943) 5–7.Google Scholar
4 Peter copied the passage which was published as Appendix A of my paper; part of this has been quoted by Fr. Kennedy, Med. Stud. 5.11. The short portion of text quoted ibid. n.74 follows this passage in both Robert and Peter.Google Scholar
5 Med. Stud. 5.2–5.Google Scholar
6 It is in the articles and monographs published 1906–1916 that he dealt most frequently with Robert's Penitential. Regarding his dependence on Huguccio, see e.g. ‘Der Ausdruck “Sacramentum” bei Robert von Flamesbury,’ Der Katholik 4 8 (1911-n) 454–457.Google Scholar
7 Les réordinations (Paris 1907) 352.Google Scholar