No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 July 2016
A manuscript in the collection of the University of Chicago, which is labeled in the catalogue as Promptuarium homileticum, has turned out on closer inspection to be a partial copy of Richard Fishacre's Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard, the first such commentary composed at Oxford. Bearing the eighteenth-century bookplate of Edward Browne and the 1792 bookplate of the executors of the estate of Thomas Eyre, the manuscript, now catalogued as University of Chicago MS 156, was purchased from Percy Dobell and Son by Shirley Farr, class of 1904, and donated to the university in 1926. The source of the title Promptuarium homileticum can be traced back at least as far as the dealer's listing, which was subsequently tipped into the manuscript and copied uncritically by Seymour De Ricci in his 1935 Census of Medieval and Renaissance Manuscripts in the United States and Canada.
1 The discovery was made by Margaret Jewett in the course of fulfilling an assignment for a graduate course in reading Latin manuscripts.Google Scholar
2 For the most recent Fishacre bibliography, see James Long, R., “Richard Fishacre,” in Medieval Philosophers, ed. Hackett, Jeremiah, Dictionary of Literary Biography (Detroit and London, 1992), 15: 195–200. The Chicago manuscript becomes the fourteenth containing at least some portion of the Commentary. For a description of the other known manuscripts, see Long, , “The Science of Theology according to Richard Fishacre: Edition of the Prologue to his Commentary on the Sentences,“ Mediaeval Studies 34 (1972): 75–77.Google Scholar
3 Ricci, Seymour De, Census of Medieval and Renaissance Manuscripts in the United States and Canada, vol. 1 (New York, 1935), 572.Google Scholar
4 Ibid.Google Scholar
5 This note is typical: “Quisquis sub spe confessionis humanos adhuc honores amittere timet, iste indulgentiam quam ficta postulat humilitate a Deo adipisci non valet. Non est enim vera confessio quam comitatur mentis elatio,” fol. 172v.Google Scholar
6 A note in a medieval hand at the bottom of fol. 45r (at the end of book 3) reads: “Hic deficiunt 6 distinctiones fere.”Google Scholar
7 It seems clear that by this time Fishacre's literal gloss on the text of Peter Lombard, very much a part of the original Commentary, was of interest neither to the scribe nor perhaps to the reader.Google Scholar
8 See, e.g., the Bologna, Cambridge, London, Oriel (Oxford), and Vatican manuscripts.Google Scholar
9 Goering, Joseph, “Fishfamily,” unpublished study. Lp and Np possibly circulated anonymously as a De sacramentis. Not only is such a division sanctioned by Fishacre in the Prologue, but two early catalogues (of the Balliol and Vatican manuscripts) identify book 4 under that title; see Long, , “Science of Theology,” 75, n. 18.Google Scholar
10 Goering, “Fishfamily,” 4–5.Google Scholar
11 See Appendix for this text, which is reproduced courtesy of Professor Goering's transcription from CgLpNp without noting variants or sources.Google Scholar
12 Ibid., 7–8.Google Scholar
13 Ibid., 10.Google Scholar