² Tancred, preface to his Apparatus on Comp. III; cf. Singer, , Bern. Comp., pp. 3 (n. 2). 29; Kuttner, , Repertorium, p. 319. Google Scholar

³ Cf. Singer, , Bern. Comp., p. 5 ff.; Repertorium, p. 317 f.Google Scholar

⁴ Andreae, Joh., Additiones in Speculum Durantis, lib. III, tit. de inquis., §1, gl. Puto quod non bene (ed. Venet., 1577, III, 28vb, gl. k). On the younger Bernard, see Barraclough's, G. biographical notes in English Historical Review, XLIX (1934), 487–494, and in Dictionnaire de Droit Canonique, II (Paris, 1937), 777–779; also Kuttner, , ZRGKan, XXVI (1937), 455 f., Studia et documenta historiae et iuris, VI (1940), 73, n. 7 Two typical cases of confusion between the two Bernards are recorded in Repertorium, p. 318, n. 1. Google Scholar

⁵ Andreae, Joh., Add. in Spec., preface, § Porro; cf. also the preface of his Novella. Both texts are reprinted in Schulte, QL, I, 240 f.; Singer, , Bern. Comp., p. 4, n. 4.—In Repertorium, p. 408, n. 2, I wrongly interpreted the passage “et apostillas dederat super illas” as referring to some lost Notabilia, instead of glosses. Google Scholar

⁶ Hispanus de Petesella, Joh., Summa decretalium (c. 1236, cf. Schulte, , QL, II, 81; Kuttner, , Repertorium, p. 33, n. 1) cites several times a master b., meaning probably the Compostellan; cf. Schulte, , “Beiträge zur Literatur über die Decretalen Gregors IX”, SBWien, LXVIII (1871), 79. Quite recently, the late lamented Msgr. Gillmann disclosed in one of his last articles two quotations from b. conpostell'., the one made by an anonymous glossator of Comp. I, the other by Laurentius, on the same compilation, both in Erlangen, University Library, MS 349. Cf. Gillmann, , “Petrus Brito und Martinus Zamorensis”, AKKR, CXX (1940), 64, n. 2. Google Scholar

⁷ A similar complaint regarding the general neglect of medieval scriptural glosses was recently made by Miss Beryl Smalley in the introduction to her brilliant book, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages (Oxford, 1941).Google Scholar

⁸ Not even the fate and present whereabouts of all MSS in occupied countries can be ascertained. In this study, MSS are cited according to their pre-war location. Google Scholar

⁹ As to important publications, since 1937, by Gillmann, Post, Heckel and Vetulani, see above, n. 1. Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 1} Cf. Repertorium pp. 123–167 Two newly discovered works can be added: the Summa “Sicut uetus testamentum“, Florence, Natl. Libr., MS Conv. soppr. G. IV 1736, on parts i and ii of Gratian, and the Summa “Ius aliud diuinum“, Milan, Ambrosian Libr., MS H. 94 sup. (fols. 73r, 74r–80v), covering D. 1–54 of pt. i only. Both writings belong to the early period of the school, c. 1148–1159. Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 2} The use of the singular number, Decretum, is of relatively recent origin. Cf. Kuttner, , “The Father of the Science of Canon Law,” The Jurist, I (1941), 15, n. 29.Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 3} Cf. Repertorium , p. 59 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 4} Op. cit. , p. 1 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 5} Some 120 MSS are recorded in Repertorium, pp. 13–58; I can add now thirty more: Admont, Benedictine Monastery, MS 48; Cologne, Cathedral Libr. MS 129 (information furnished by Most, R. Mr.); Florence, Laurentian Libr., MSS S. Croce I sin. 1 (sets i–iii of the various gloss strata), Aedil. Flor Eccl. 96 (set i), Acquisti 93 (set i); Natl. Libr., MSS Conv. soppr. A. II. 376 and A. II. 403; Graz, Univ. Libr., MSS 52 (set i), 69 (set i), 71 (sets i–iv), and 80 (set i) (formerly MSS 40/18, 40/4, 40/26, and 40/5 respectively); Heiligenkreuz, Cistercian Monast., MSS 43 and 44; Krakow, Bibl. Jagiellonska, MS 357 (set i; information furnished by Vetulani, Dr.); Lilienfeld, Cistercian Monast., MSS 222 (sets i–iii) and 223 (set i); Milan, Canons Regular of St. Ambrogio, unnumbered MS; New York, Pierpont Morgan Libr., MS M. 446 (sets i–iv); Olmütz, Metropolitan Chapter, MS 266 (sets i–iv); Plock, Diocesan Seminary, MS 64 (sets i and iii; cf. Vetulani, , Projet, p. 446); St. Paul in Lavant, Bened. Monast., MS XXV 2.6 (formerly XXV a/25); Treves, Municipal Libr., MS 907 (set i; information furnished by the Rev Kessler, P. J.); Venice, Marcian Libr., MS lat. IV 117 (Valentinelli's catalogue, VIII. 16; set i); Vercelli, Cathedral Chapter, MS XXV (sets i–ii); Verona, Cath. Chapt., MS CLXXXIV (formerly 164; sets i–ii); Vicenza, Bibl. Bertoliana, MS 17 (formerly 15.2.2; catal. no. 627; sets i–ii); Vienna, Natl. Libr., MSS 2061 and 2102 (sets i–iii); Washington, D. C., Library of Congress, Law Division, unnumbered MS (set i); Zwettl, Cistercian Monast., MS 31. Google Scholar

On the other hand, the MSS of Einsiedeln, Bened. Monast., 193 and of Florence, Laurentian Libr., Gadd. reliq. 2 (formerly MS Magliabecch. XXXI. 46), listed in Repertorium , pp. 48. 51 on a conjectural basis, are to be discarded: the first contains the Glossa Ordinaria of Bartholomaeus Brixiensis, the other fragments of the Apparatus “Ecce vicit leo” (cf. below §6, n. 50). In some other cases, again, our conjectural suppositions of early glosses have been confirmed: Lucca, Archbishop's Libr., MS 20 (formerly MS 6); St. Florian, Canons Regular, MS III.5; and (information by the Rev. Kessler) Cues, Hospital, MS 223; Treves, Diocesan Seminary, MS 8. Six further MSS (cf. Repertorium, pp. 18. 19. 44. 48. 50) remain still unexplored.Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 6} Their number is more conspicuous than is commonly believed, and includes also some items not properly recognized in the Repertorium. Full evidence for the MSS (at least 25) of the French and the English Schools will be given on another occasion. Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 7} Some examples are cited in Repertorium, p. 9. Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 8} On the following glossators and their works, see Repertorium, s. hh. vv., and the bibliography given by Van Hove, A., Prolegomena (Commentarium Lovaniense in Codicem Iuris Canonici, I, i, Mechliniae-Romae, 1928) p. 223 f.Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 9} Add to the bibliography (n. 8): Mocci, A., “Documenti inediti sul canonista Paucapalea”, Atti della R. Accademia delle scienze di Torino, XL (1905), 316 ff., who identifies the canonist with the homonymous bishop (since 1146) of Giusta, S., Sardinia (?).—Among the MSS of Paucapalea's Summa (Repertorium, p. 125 f.) the presumed fragment of Oslo has to be cancelled; according to recent information, it contains pieces of Stephen of Tournai's Summa. Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 10} Add to the bibliography, for Rufinus' career and pastoral writings: Morin, Dom G., “Le discours d'ouverture du concile général de Latran (1179) et l'oeuvre littéraire de Maître Rufin, évêque d'Assise”, Atti della Pont. Accademia Romana di Archeologia, Memorie, II (1928), 113–133.—Of Rufinus' Summa (cf. Repertorium, p. 131 f.), two new MSS were discovered by the Rev. Kessler, P J. in Monza, Cathedral Chapter: MS i. 18/156 (formerly T. VIII, invent. no. ccxvii), and fragments in MS i. 19/161 (formerly T. XII, invent. no. ccxxiv; fols. 31–110), bound together with fragments of Stephen's Summa. Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 11} Add to the bibliography: Argnani, J., “Joannes Faventinus glossator”, Apollinaris, IX (1936), 418–443; 640–658, who refutes conclusively (p. 418 ff.) Schulte's unwarranted identification of master John with an homonymous bishop of Faenza (QL, I, 137), and shows his true identity to be that of a canon of the cathedral chapter, 1174–1187 But Argnani errs in making (p. 424 f.) one person of this canon magister Johannes and a Johannes presbyter who subscribes chapter documents between 1203 and 1220. The further discussion on the writings of the glossator (pp. 425 ff. 640 ff.) is an absurd compilation from second hand sources, full of misunderstandings, inconsistencies and unacknowledged quotations.—For John's, Summa (cf. Repertorium, p. 143 f.), add two new MSS: Krakow, Cath. Chapter, MS 88 (information by Prof. Vetulani), and Nürnberg, Municipal Libr. MS Cent. IV 94 (information by Mr. Most).Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 12} Add to the bibliography: Lambert, A., “Bisignano, Simon de”, Dictionn. de Droit Canonique, II (1937), 900. For the Summa (cf. Repertorium, p. 147), add a copy of the prologue alone, Vienna, Natl. Libr., MS 2121, on the margin of fol. 84r. Among the MSS of Gratian listed above, n. 5, the copies of the Pierpont Morgan Library (set iv) and of Zwettl are particularly rich in Simon's glosses.Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 13} A critical account of the various types of these gloss compositions, with full MS evidence, is much needed, but beyond the scope of this study Suffice it to say that the preliminary groupment of the MSS into three main types (Repertorium , pp. 3 ff. 13 ff.) can now be abandoned in favor of a more exact classification of at least five types from Paucapalea to Huguccio. Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 14} See below, §9. Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 15} For the siglum d. see Repertorium , pp. 19. 51, also the new MSS (above n. 5) Cues 223, Treves Sem. 8, Vercelli XXV Schulte proposed the authorship of a magister D. canonicus Londiniensis (QL, I, 151). If he were right, this would be the same master David of whose correspondence much was published from the MS Vatic. lat. 6024 by Liverani, F, Spicilegium Liberianum (Florence, 1863), pp. 554 ff. 603–628.735.740 f. (some letters are already in Sarti, II, 161 ff.). Recently, Brooke, Z. N, “The Register of Master David”, Essays in History presented to R. L. Poole (Oxford, 1927), pp. 227–245, analyzed in full the Vatican MS and sketched the career of David as a student of Clermont, Paris, Bologna, and as agent and procurator of bishop Gilbert Foliot. Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 16} The siglum f occurs in Cues, MS 223 and in Munich, State Libr., MS lat. 10244 (cf. Repertorium , p. 19). Also the Glossa Palatina (see on this apparatus below, §6 C) quotes on C. 15, q. 6, c. Auctoritatem (2): “quicquid dicat h (ugguccio), b. et f. dicunt” (Vatican Libr., MS Pal. lat. 658, fol. 56ra). Who was this f.? Google Scholar

(i) A master Fidentius or Fidantius, canonicus Civitatensis—which might be Ciudad Rodrigo in Spain, or Cività-Tempio in Sardinia, or Civitate in Calabria—was once entrusted by Alexander III with the decision of a case (JL n. 13854; the address is corrupted in almost all the decretal collections, cf. Singer, , “Neue Beiträge”, SBWien, CLXXI, i [1913], 34, n. 1). But was this master ever a member of the Bolognese school?.Google Scholar

(ii) As to f. = Philip, chronological reasons rule out the only Italian master of that name who is found, in 1229, in the school of Padua (cf. Gloria, , p. 547: Filippo d'Aquileja), and who wrote, after 1216, gloss additions with the sigla ph., phi., phy., fi., f., on Gratian (cf. Repertorium, pp. 95. 100), on the Comp. I (Admont, Bened. Monast., MS 22 [fols. 1–85v, in set ii]; Graz, Univ. Libr., MS 106 [formerly 41/9, fols. 1–90v, in set ii]), the Comp. II (Admont, MS cit., fols. 86–128v, in set ii), and the Comp. IV (ibid., fols. 246v–270, in set ii). Schulte also claimed to have seen his glosses on the Comp. III in Chartres, Municipal Libr., MS 296 (formerly 354; cf. Repertorium, p. 362) but according to my own inspection of the MS, he must have been mistaken.Google Scholar

(iii) Finally, the siglum φ in glosses on the Collectio Cassellana (c. 1185–1187, cf. Repertorium, p. 293) points to a master of the French school, perhaps the Philippus iureconsultus, or the Philippus Sarracenus, decreta et sacras claudens in pectore leges, both of whom Gilles de Paris names in his poem, Carolina (1198), ed. Bulaeus, , Historia Universitatis Parisiensis, II (Paris, 1665), 526.—Thus, the signature f. in the early Bolognese glosses remains a riddle—or is it simply a corrector's mark, for falsum, as Juncker, , ZRGKan, XV (1926), 356, suggested? Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 17} For the siglum Ro., see Repertorium, pp. 20. 49, also Salzburg, St. Peter's Abbey, MS a. XII. 9. Schulte counted Rodoicus among the Bolognese, as a member of the Picciolpassi family (QL, I, 186, cf. Repertorium, p. 20, n. 1). But master Robert Courçon, in his theological Summa (c. 1204–1208) had named Rodoicus Modicipassus among masters of the French school; cf. Hauréau, B., Notices et extraits des MSS de la Bibl. Nationale, XXXI, ii (1886), 269.271; Juncker, , ZRGKan, XV (1926), 493, note. From a gloss of Johannes Galensis on Comp. III we know that Rodoicus was precentor of Sens, and appeared for the chapter in an election suit at the Curia, 1200 A.D. (Po. n. 1043); cf. Gillmann, “Des Johannes Galensis Apparat,” AKKR, CXVIII (1938), 219. Thus, the Ro.-glosses in Bologna cannot be his. Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 18} On these two, see below, §§8.9.12. Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 19} For such quotations from Albert, see Schulte, , QL, I, 130, n. 4. Albert is commonly believed to have written also original glosses, cf. Schulte, , Glosse, pp. 37. 51; QL, I, 130 f.; Kuttner, , Repertorium, pp. 7.10. But Schulte's main piece of evidence was a blunder: The glosses with the siglum Al., quoted by him (Glosse, p. 51) from MS XVII.A.12 (formerly I. B. I) of the National Museum in Prague, are not found among the pre-ordinaria materials of this MS, but in its very last stratum (set vi) which contains additions of late Bohemian origin (14th cent.) to the Glossa Ordinaria. The sigla Al. and steph., occurring frequently in this stratum, evidently refer to Albertus Ranconis, scholastic of the Prague cathedral (1369–1372) and to Stephen of Prague, archdiocesan chancellor and lector (c. 1350). Both Schulte, QL, II, 431 f. and Ott, E., “Das Eindringen des kanonischen Rechts in Böhmen und Mähren”, ZRGKan, III (1913), 59.81.87, overlooked the testimony of the Prague MS for the two Bohemian masters.—We can prove also for the few glosses in other MSS which are said to be by Albert of Benevento (cf. Repertorium, pp. 18.47.49) that the attribution is false.Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 20} For Stephen's biography, see now Warichez, J, Etienne de Tournai et son temps (Tournai-Paris, 1937). It can be proved that all the early glosses with the siglum ste., or otherwise attributed to him by recent authors (cf. Repertorium, pp. 12. 18; also Juncker, , ZRGKan, XV [1926], 391, n. 1) are abstracted from his Summa which was written in France after 1160 but, as is well known, much read in Bologna. A great number of such excerpts are found as glosses, e.g. in St. Florian, Canons Regular, MS III.5.—For the Summa (cf. Repertorium, p. 133 f.), four MSS can be added: Milan, Ambrosian Libr., MS R.73 sup. (misbound); Monza, Cath. Chapter, MS i. 19/161 (fols. 3–30, fragment, see above, n. 10); Oslo, National Archives, coll. of fragments, no. 159 (4 leaves); Turin, Natl. Libr., MS D. IV 40 (Pasini's no. 909; catal. no. 514). On the other hand, the MS 119 of Boulogne-sur-mer, Municipal Libr. (cf. Repertorium, p. 134) does not contain Stephen's work but two writings of the French school: (i) an anonymous Summa (fols. 2–62), influenced by Stephen and by Sicard of Cremona, beg. “In eadem ciuitate”; (ii) an interesting composition of Distinctiones and Generalia (fols. 73–81v), beg. “Breuiter quid contrarietatis” Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 21} For the famous canonist's activity as a lexicographer and grammarian, see Manitius, M., Geschichte der lateinischen Literatur des Mittelalters, III (Munich, 1931), 191 f. A modicus libellus on the calendar which Huguccio himself cites in his Summa under the title of Agiographia, beginning “Laboris assiduitas” (cf. Gillmann, , AKKR, XCI [1911], 61, n. 2; Zur Inventaris., p. 63), seemed to be lost. But we can identify it with the anonymous fragment of an etymological glossary, described by Hauréau, B., Notices et extraits, XXXIV, i (1891), 34 f., from Paris, Bibl. Nat., MS lat. 14877, fol. 124: this fragment begins “Laboris assiduitas” and explains the names of the months, the days, and the saints of the Roman calendar.—The attribution to Huguccio of an Expositio de symbolo apostolorum, by Trombelli, G. C., Bedae et Claudii Taurinensis opuscula (Bononiae, 1755), p. 205 ff., seems very doubtful to me. Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 22} Cf. Repertorium, pp. 155–159, with 33 MSS. Add now: Klosterneuburg, Canons Regular, MS 89 (without C. 23–26 and tract. de poen., cf. Gillmann, , Zur Inventaris., p. 62) and MS 295 (fols. 110–238; fragment as described in the catalogue); Milan, , Ambrosian Libr., MS A. 238 inf (fols. 89rb–162rb: only tract. de cons., as continuation of a commentary on C. 33, q. 3—C. 36 [fols. 37ra–89rb] which is based on Bartholomaeus Brixiensis' Glossa Ordinaria, and begins “Johannis quinto in principio dicitur” [misread and misjudged by Teetaert, cf. Repertorium, p. 80, n. 2]); Vienna, , Natl. Libr., MS 2061 (only C. 2–C. 11, q. 1, c. 39; written as intercapitular gloss in a fragmentary copy of Gratian). Gillmann, , loc. cit., noted also Cambrai, Munic. Libr., MS 567 as an addition to my list; but this is simply an old class-mark of the already known MS Cambrai 612. Further bibliography on the peculiarities of the one or the other MS may be found in Gillmann, , loc. cit.; Le Bras, RHD, 4, XVI (1937), 728; N. del Re, I codici Vaticani della “Summa decretorum” di Uguccione da Pisa (Roma, 1938). Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 23} Cf. Repertorium, p. 158: Huguccio's commentary on the causae haereticorum (C. 23–26) breaks off with C. 23, q. 4, c. 33. This fragment is preserved in several of the MSS, along with the continuation (C. 23, q. 4, c. 34–C. 26, q. 6, c. 3) written by the pupil c. 1185–1187 Four such MSS are listed loc. cit.; add Admont, Bened. Monast., MS 7; Florence, , Laurentian Libr., MSS S. Croce I sin. 4 and Medic.-Fesul. 126. But in other MSS, the same continuator begins already with C. 23, pr (six MSS listed loc. cit.); and in Montecassino, MS 396, we have as a separate writing this pupil's commentary not only on C. 23–26 (pp. 136–175) but also on C. 1 and tract. de cons. (pp. 113–135, 175–190; listed as an uncertain Summa Casinensis in Repertorium, p. 166).—For three other continuations on C. 23–26 see Repertorium, p. 158 f.; still another is contained in Verona, Cath. Chapter, MS CXCIV (formerly 169, misbound). It begins, after Huguccio's original C. 23, q. 4, c. 33, again with c. 33: Est iniusta] “Casus: ostenditur hic duabus.” Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 24} The anonymous Summa Reginensis was written during Huguccio's professorship (Repertorium, p. 160 ff.), and refers to him as magister meus (op. cit., p. 165, n. 2; Gillmann, , Zur Inventaris., p. 63 f.), or also as ut in summa dicitur, and as hug. (Vatican Libr., MS Reg. lat. 1061, fol. 41va).—An anonymous collection of Summulae and Distinctiones in Montecassino, MS 396 (pp. 20–31.82–84; not Quaestiones, as presumed in the catalogue and in Repertorium, p. 250), belongs to the same period.Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 25} Cf. Repertorium, p. 222 ff. Additional MSS: Douai, Munic. Libr., MS 649 (fols. 7–25v; formerly MS 582, given wrongly as no. 581 by Schulte and Tailliar, cf. Repertorium, p. 222, n. 5); Lucca, Governmental Libr., MS 2698 (fols. 163v–191v); Paris, Bibl. Nat. MS lat. 3922 B; Zwettl, , Cist. Monast., MS 162 (fols. 105–122v).—The identity of the English master Richard in Bologna is still an unsolved riddle. The main solutions proposed are: Bishop Richard Poore (cf. the older bibliographers and Schulte, , QL, I, 183 f.; rejected now by all historians); Richard de Lacy (cf. Repertorium, p. 223, n. 1); Richard de Mores (Morins, Mora), the later prior of Dunstable (cf. Russell, J. C., Dictionary of Writers of Thirteenth Century England [London-New York-Toronto, 1936], p. 111 ff.). The case for the latter seems strongly supported by the subscription “Explicit summa breuis magistri Ricardi de Mores super decreta Graciani” in Dublin, Trinity Coll., MS 275, fol. 183 (Russell, p. 112). But this Summa brevis (MS cit., p. 169–183) is different from all the ascertained writings of the Bolognese canonist. The whole problem and Richard's numerous works will be discussed in a forthcoming study on the early English canonists. See also below, §§10 (n. 40). 18 (nn. 20.22).23 (n. 4).24 (nn. 17.18).Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 26} Cf. Repertorium, p. 229 f. Additional MSS: Plock, Diocesan Seminary, MS 80 (fols. 1–101v; Vetulani, , Projet, p. 449); Vienna, Natl. Libr., MS 2142 (fols. 49–118v); Zwettl, Cist. Monast., MS 297 (fols. 1–85v). An additional proof against Siena, and for Arezzo, as the canonist's home town (cf. Repertorium, p. 230, n. 1) is found in the obituary of Maria di Reno, S., Bologna, edited by Trombelli, G. C., Memorie istoriche concernenti le due canoniche di S. Maria di Reno e di S. Salvatore (Bologna, 1752), p. 329 ff., under the date of October 4, 1206: obiit magister Benincasa aretinus (cf. the reprint in Sarti, II, 287).—Many incorrect statements are in Naz, R., “Benencasa”, Dictionnaire de Droit Can., II, 747 Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 27} Cf. Repertorium, pp. 272–288.Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 28} On the primitive style of Bolognese decretal references before the Comp. I, cf. Kuttner, , “Zur neuesten Glossatorenforschung”, Studia et documenta historiae et iuris, VI (1940), 313 f.Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 29} On the date, cf. Repertorium, p. 322, n. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 30} For the systematic collections of France and England—among which some were openly intended to substitute the Comp. I—see Repertorium, pp. 290–299; some rectifications are given by Holtzmann, W, ZRGKan, XXVII (1938), 300–302; Kuttner, , RHD, 4, XVII (1938), 197—We can add now (i) to the family of the Appendix Concilii Lateranensis: Vienna, Natl. Libr., MS 2172 (fols. 2–52v); (ii) to the family of the Coll. Bambergensis: a fragment in Paris, Bibl. Nat., MS Baluze 77 (fols. 324–328; discovered by Holtzmann, Dr., copy of a lost MS of Tours); a fragment in Florence, Laurent. Libr., MS S. Croce III sin. 6 (fols. 2 and 1); an index of rubrics in Verona, Cath. Chapter, MS CLXXXIV (formerly 164; fol. 254v); (iii) to the family of the Coll. Francofortana: Troyes, Munic. Libr., MS 961. Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 31} This is shown by the fact that only few of the MSS are furnished with some scanty glosses: cf. Repertorium pp. 290 (Appendix). 291 (Coll. Bamb.). 292 (Coll. Cass.). 296 (Coll. Franc.), and the MSS of Vienna and Troyes, cited above. As to the use of the various collections for reference in writings of the Western schools, cf. Repertorium, pp. 17. 23.24.199.200.252.Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 32} Some Summae in Repertorium , p. 204 ff., Apparatus, ibid., p. 59 ff. and below, §6, n. 50.Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 33} This tradition is represented by at least thirty-six of the MSS listed in Repertorium, pp. 13 ff. and above, §3, n. 5: Bamberg Can. 13 (set i), Cambrai 646 (set ii), Cividale 96 (i), Cues 223 (i), Douai 590 (i), Durham C. I. 7 (i), Florence, S. Croce IV sin. 1 (ii, iii) and Aedil. 96 (i), Graz 71 (iii, iv) and 80 (i), Hereford, P VII. 3 (ii), Jena El. fol. 56, Leipzig Haen. 18 (i), Lilienfeld 222 (i), London, B.M. Add. 24658 (ii), Montecassino 66 (i, ii), Munich lat. 10244, Naples XII. a. 5 (ii) and XII. a. 9 (i), New York, Morgan M. 446 (iii), Oxford, New College 210 (i), Paris, Arsenal 677 (ii[iii]) and Ste.-Geneviève 342, Prague, Metropolitan Chapter J. XIX (i), Reims 676 (iii), Rome, Angelica 1270 (iii), Salzburg a. XII. 9 (i), Treves, Munic. Libr. 906 (ii) and Semin. 8, Vatican, Vat. lat. 2494 (ii), Pal. lat. 625 (ii), Ross. lat. 595 (i) and St. Peter's Chapter A. 27 (i), Vercelli XXV (i?), Verona CLXXXIV (i, ii), Wolfenbüttel Helmst. 33.—In this large group, conformities are found especially among the MSS of Bamberg, Graz, Jena, Leipzig, Lilienfeld, Munich, Paris (Ste.-Genev.), Prague, Vatican (Ross.), Wolfenbüttel; also between Salzburg and Treves 906. Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 34} In Lilienfeld, the citations commonly run: alex. iii. Licet preter solitum (fol. 57v), or extra. Cum in cunctis (fol. 76r), but sometimes with citation of titles: ex. de eo qui dux. in matrim. quam poll. adult., Significauit (fol. 139v: 1 Comp. IV, 7, 2). In MS Ross., commonly: ex. Relatum est (fol. 53r), or alex. iii. Litteras, et cap. Concessit, et decr eug(enii), Iuuenis (fol. 223v), but in pt. iii we frequently find references like arg. ex. de uerbor signif. Quesiuit (fol. 285r: 1 Comp. V, 36, 9). Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 35} Abundant evidence is found for this statement if one compares the texts printed from Cod. Mon. by Gillmann, , “Die Abfassungszeit der Dekretglosse des Clm. 10244”, AKKR, XCII (1912), 204–210. 368 (note)–369; XCIII (1913), 450–458; XCIV (1914), 436–439, with the readings of the same glosses in Bamberg, MS Can. 13 which Gillmann has carefully recorded in his footnotes. Strangely enough, he failed to draw the obvious conclusion from the eloquent facts. The MSS of Paris and the Vatican Library which I checked agree with the readings of Bamberg. See also Juncker, “Summen und Glossen”, ZRGKan, XIV (1925), 465, n. 4.Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 36} In these interpolated references, we read N dicit, or secundum N, or simply the siglum N This corruption of the initial H (uguccio) is easily understood with the help of some paleographie experience; it occurs also in other MSS, cf. Juncker, , ZRGKan, XV (1926), 344.347, n. 3; Gillmann, , AKKR, CXVI (1936), 457, note.— Trifone, R., “Gli scritti di Guglielmo Nasone”, Rivista di storia del diritto italiano, II (1929), 245, is badly mistaken in interpreting this N as siglum of the 13th century decretalist William Naso.—Such extra references to Huguccio as in Munich, and even more lengthy excerpts from his work, are not uncommon in private marginal notes outside the proper gloss compositions, e.g. in Douai, MS 586 (set iii); Edinburgh, Natl. Libr., MS 3.1.12; Lilienfeld, MS 222 (set ii); Naples, MS XII.a.9 (set ii), Paris, Bibl. Nat., MSS lat. 3885 and 3886 A (set ii, copious abstracts); Reims, MS 676 (set iv); MS Vatic. lat. 2494 (set iii). They are based generally on Huguccio's Summa, not on his glosses. His name, when not suppressed, is abridged on such occasions by the decretists, and also later by the decretalists, in all possible manners: N., h., hu., hugu. (cf. Repertorium, pp. 19. 20.40.41.43.49.53.54.78.205, n. 1), ȳ., yγ., vγ. (cf. Juncker, , ZRGKan, XIV [1925], 415, n. 1; Repertorium, p. 71), or even wiz. (cf. Gillmann, . AKKR, CXVIII [1938], 214, note; CXX [1940], 62; Zur Inventaris., p. 78). The latter form is evidently a corruption derived from vgvitio—vvitio. His genuine siglum, however, is foung only as vγ. Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 37} Gloss on D. 74, c. 6, printed in AKKR, XCII, 204. Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 38} Similar selections from Richard appear also, as a separate stratum, in Prague, Metrop. Chapter, MS J.XIX (set ii). Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 39} MSS Munich lat. 10244, Bamberg Can. 13. Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 40} “Die Abfassungszeit der Dekretglosse”, AKKR, XCII (1912), 201–224, particularly p. 217 ff.—On the Apparatus of Laurentius, see below, §6 B.Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 41} On the Ordinaria, see below, §6 D. Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 42} Gillmann concedes this, art. cit., p. 214, but discards the fact as insignificant. Cf. also his remark in AKKR, XCIV (1914), 242.Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 43} I select only two examples: (i) the gloss on D. 87, c. 3, v. remedia (Gillmann, , p. 218) returns in Laurentius, in the Glossa Palatina, and in the Ordinaria, but with its primitive decretal reference changed, to fit in the Comp. I; (ii) on D. 73, c. 3, v. Et hic sciendum est, the mixed compositions have a gloss, “Nota uigiliam pentecosten. quod abhinc mutantur”; the three said apparatuses drop the first sentence, and add, as an afterthought, “scil. statuimus sacras” (cf. Gillmann, , p. 219).Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 44} This solution was proposed in Repertorium , pp. 19. 77 f.; I argued then that individual glosses by Laurentius were found also in other MSS. But the argument is not conclusive: the glosses in the MSS Cambrai 646 (set iv), Reims 676 (set iv), Tours 559 (set iii), and Vatic. lat. 1367 (set ii) are strata of younger origin than the Laurentian apparatus and, as far as his glosses are concerned, derived from it.Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 45} Additions of the siglum by later hands occur, rarely, in the Vatican MS Ross. 595, and have, of course, no critical value. Cf. also Repertorium, p. 84, n. 2; 85, n. 1. Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 46} Mainly glosses on the various Compilationes antiquae of decretals, cf. Repertorium, pp. 326. 346.356.383. His part in the composition of the Apparatus “Servus appellatur” on Comp. III has been overrated as formal authorship by Gillmann, , Laur Hisp. (above, §1, n. 1), passim, and by myself in Repertorium, p. 356. Cf. now Post, So-called Laur., who proves that this work is an anonymous compilation from various authors' glosses (including also many by Laurentius). The same could be shown, I believe, for the gloss composition on Comp. I in Erlangen, Univ. Libr., MS 349 (set ii) which Gillmann, Zur Inventaris., pp. 72–80, considers as a formal apparatus by Laurentius.—Additional MSS of the Apparatus “Servus appellatur” have been discovered in a fragment of Kassel, Landesbibl., MS jur 11 (Gillmann, , AKKR, CVXII [1937], 436–452), and in Plock, Diocesan Seminary, MS 67 (fols. 121–239v; Vetulani, , Projet, pp. 441.450).Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 47} Gillmann, , Laur Hisp., p. 125 f. On the bishop's various activities in Church and politics, see Florez, H., España Sagrada, XVII (Madrid, 1763), 102 ff. As late as 1244, Pope Innocent IV employed him as judge delegate in various cases; cf. Berger, E., Les registres d'Innocent IV, I (Paris, 1884), nn. 109.112.412. Cf. also Reuter, A. E., Königtum und Episkopat in Portugal im 13. Jahrhundert (Abhandlungen zur mittleren und neueren Geschichte, hrsg. von Below, Finke, Meinecke, LXIX, Berlin, 1928), pp. 18. 31. Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 48} A concise review of the early apparatuses on the various parts of the Corpus Iuris Civilis is found in Genzmer, E., “Die justinianische Kodifikation und die Glossatoren”, Atti del congresso internazionale di diritto romano, MCMXXXIII, pt. i: Bologna , I (Pavia, 1934), 390–396; see also Kantorowicz's, H. note, included in Smalley, B., The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages (Oxford, 1941), p. 36 ff. Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 49} Cf. Repertorium, p. 322 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 50} On the outstanding Apparatus “Ecce vicit leo“, written in the French school after 1202, cf. Repertorium, pp. 59–66; the glosses of Douai, Munic. Libr., MS 592, and of Evreux, Munic. Libr., MS 106, set ii (Repertorium, p. 36) are also to be considered as formal apparatuses.—For Ecce vicit leo, seven MSS are listed op. cit., p. 59; add now: Plock, Diocesan Seminary, MS 64 (set ii; cf. Vetulani, , Projet, p. 446), and Florence, , Laurentian Libr., MS Gadd. reliq. 2 (formerly MS Magliabecch. XXXI. 46) where the apparatus is however destroyed in great part by the scribe who entered later the Glossa Ord. of Bartholomaeus Brixiensis. (The identity of the Magliabecchian with the Gaddian MS was overlooked in Repertorium, pp. 48. 110. See for the history of the so-called Codices Gaddiani reliqui : Bandini, A.M., Catalogus codicum bibliothecae Mediceae-Laurentianae, IV [Florentiae, 1777] xxxiv, and Bibliotheca Leopoldina-Laurentiana, I [1791], dedication page and p. xv). Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 51} Cf. Repertorium, pp. 67–75 where five MSS are listed. Add now: Klosterneuburg, Canons Regular, MS 101 (set i); Vatican Library, MS Ross.lat. 595 (set ii, not identified in Repertorium, p. 58).Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 52} Full proof for this statement will be given on another occasion. The pieces of evidence are (i) the frequent sigla, a., al., in the Vatican MS; (ii) a comparison with Alan's decretalist glosses; (iii) the inscription of a lost MS of the Grande-Chartreuse, Jus.can.XXXVII: Summa Alani super decretum, 3° folio “Jus naturale”; cf. the old catalogue (15th cent.), edited by Fournier, P, “Notice sur la bibliothèque de la Grande-Chartreuse”, Bulletin de l'Académie Delphinale, IV, i(1886), 383.—Alanus' other works are: an Apparatus on Comp. I, written after 1207, some glosses on Comp. II, and his Collectio decretalium, published c.1206. Cf. Repertorium, pp. 316. 325.346; some rectifications in RHD 4, XVII (1938), 198, n. 5 and in Gillmann, Zur Inventaris., p. 71 f. The collection of decretals has now been analyzed in detail by von Heckel, R. in his scholarly study on Gilbert and Alan (above, §1, n. 1); a newly discovered second redaction of this collection, Salzburg, St. Peter's Abbey, MS a. IX. 18 (fols. 169–243), and Vercelli, Cath. Chapter, MS LXXXIX (fols. 51–136, with glosses by Alan himself), will be discussed on another occasion. Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 53} Cf. Repertorium, p. 70 f.Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 54} E.g. in the Vatican and the Klosterneuburg MSS. Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 55} Cf. Repertorium, pp. 76–80.Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 56} Paris, Bibl. Nat., MS lat. 15393, set ii (= Lp); Bibl. Mazarine, MS 1287, set ii (= Lm); Charleville, Munic. Libr., MS 269, set ii (= Lc). An alleged fourth MS has to be discarded: Schulte, Glosse, p. 23, claimed to have discovered the Apparatus in Prague, Natl. Museum, MS XVII. A. 12 (formerly I.B.I); cf. Repertorium, pp. 52. 77 Actually, the Prague MS contains: two early gloss compositions (sets i, ii); the Ordinaria of Joh. Teutonicus (set iii); a selection from the Casus of Benencasa (set iv); various additions, from Bartholomaeus Brixiensis' second redaction of the Ordinaria, and from the Rosarium of Guido de Baysio (set v); Bohemian additions, mainly by Ranconis, Albert and Stephen of Prague (set vi; cf. above, n. 19). The siglum of Laurentius appears frequently in set v, and has been interpolated often in set iii, as a result of the copious, though not always trustworthy quotations from Laurentius in Guido's Rosarium (written in 1300; on Guido's testimonia and their value, see Repertorium, p. 87 f., below n. 75). Schulte's mistake, and his assertions regarding the Prague text of the Ordinaria (cf. Kuttner, , Dekretsumme, pp. 164, n. 1; 168) are thus explained.—Another MS, now lost, is mentioned in a Bolognese deed of 1268: sale of unum decretum cum apparatu Laurentii; cf. Chartularium Studii Bononiensis, IX (Bologna, 1931), no. lxiv (3316).Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 57} Sometimes the texts are abridged because a similar gloss stands already in set i (Alanus); on the other hand, glosses sometimes begin with lau. dicit., yet are signed by l.; this denotes rather a reportatio than an original gloss. A conspicuous example is found on C. 1, q. 3, c. Si quis obiecerit (7), v. nec pastum] “Lau. dicit quod pro consuetudinibus. la.” The siglum is cancelled, and the gloss continues, as only a member of the Parisian school could write: “et ita uidi parisius, quod episcopus Odo (d. 1208) dedit palafredum arcidiacono, postquam fuit deportatus a sancta genouefa ad maiorem ecclesiam, quia erat ecclesie consuetudo. La.” Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 58} Repertorium, p. 77 Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 59} The reason for the abbreviations was the same as in Lp; but here, set i (the Glos. Ord.) gave more opportunities for this procedure. Cf. Repertorium , p. 76.Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 60} The sigla Ja. and ber are mentioned already loc.cit.; in the meantime I also found M., W., and brito. On Martin and William, see below, Appendix; on Petrus Brito, below, §20, n. 54. Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 61} For these discrepancies between Laurentius and Glos. Pal. , see Repertorium, p. 83 f.Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 62} One example is mentioned below, §7, n. 4. Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 63} In Repertorium, p. 78 f., I thought it possible that Laurentius had published a separate apparatus on this tract, transmitted by MSS of the Glossa Ordinaria, the Palatina, and others. Among the MSS listed loc. cit., Bamberg Can. 13 and Vatic. lat. 1367 are copies of the Ordinaria, and a separate tradition is given in Paris, MS lat. 14317, and St. Omer, MS 192. (The fragment on the fly-leaves of Paris, MS lat. 3903, has to be discarded: it consists of pieces from Barth. Brixiensis and Guido de Baysio). But almost every other MS of the Ordinaria or the Palatina could be added, and each time, the glosses by Laurentius appear in another arbitrary selection and with the most discrepant readings. This would be hardly consistent with a formal apparatus. Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 64} Cf. Repertorium, pp. 81–92, where 10 MSS are listed. Add now: Salzburg, St. Peter's Abbey, MS a. XII. 9 (set ii), and Vienna, Natl. Libr., MS 2102 (set iv). In Vienna, most of Glos. Pal. has been later erased for the Glossa Ordinaria (Barth. Brix.).Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 65} Repertorium, p. 82 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 66} Op.cit., p. 91 f.; other examples in Kuttner, , Dekretsumme, pp. 177–183; below, §9, n. 33.Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 67} E.g., the introductory gloss of the Palatina on C. 4, q. 6: “Hic depingitur. vi. questio, an scil. accusator uel crimine excepto”, returns in the gloss composition of MS Vatic. lat. 1367, set ii (on this composition see below, Appendix), fol. 106rb, with the siglum v. Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 68} Cf. the interesting gloss “Omnis uirtus” on De poen., D. 2, p. c. 14, which was taken over by Johannes, Teutonicus in the Ordinaria, with the siglum a. (but see below, n. 74). It contains quotations from aristotiles (= Eth. Nicom., 1107a) and oratius (= Epp. I, 18, 9). Also the gloss “Hec clausula” on De poen., D. 5, c. 4, likewise incorporated later by Johannes, , belongs to Alan. Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 69} A gloss of the Palatina, on C. 6, q. 1, c. Quicumque (18), v. periurauerit] “Set utrum periurium magis canonica opinio”, returns in the Vatican compilation (above, n. 67), somewhat altered, with the sigla Ja. la., indicating both its author and its redactor. Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 70} Beyond frequent references to this master (cf. Kuttner, , Dekretsumme, pp. 148 f., 158. 167), there are also original glosses with his siglum (ibid. pp. 161.171). See also below, §12.Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 71} Cf. below, ch. II. Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 72} The compiler incorporated also materials from the gloss compositions of the twelfth century, and even whole groups of glosses. For instance, all the glosses that are found on Gratian's important little treatise on prescription (C. 16, q. 3, p. c. 15) in the standard compositions of Huguccio's time (I checked MS Vatic. Ross. 595, fol. 167rb), return unchanged in Glos. Pal., even including the outmoded citation (in gl. “Non enim uiolento”) of ex. alex. iii. In literis, for 1 Comp. II, 9, 5.—A similar example is found on C. 6, q. 3, c. Placuit (3). Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 73} Cf. Repertorium, p. 89 ff. Note the striking similarity of critical problems in the Palatina and the so-called Laurentius-apparatus on Comp. III (above, §5, n. 46).Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 74} E.g., the Vatican composition (above, n. 67) has on C. 2, q. 6, c. Si quis (21), v senserit, the gloss: “In quocumque quedam mulier. la.“; but in the Palatina, on c.cit., v iudicem, it stands with the siglum b.—The first gloss of Alanus mentioned above, n. 68, is given with the correct siglum a. in the Vatican MSS Pal. lat. 625 and Vat. lat. 1367 (set i) of Johannes' Ordinaria, but with the sigla a. l. in MS Pal. lat 658 of the Palatina, and with l. in MS Pal. lat. 624 of the Ordinaria. In the second Alanus-gloss, only Vat. lat. 1367 has the correct siglum, all the others give l. Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 75} Cf. Repertorium, p. 87 f.; an example for unwarranted attribution ibid., p. 91, n. 1. Another, amusing, case: on C. 13, q. 2, c. Illud (5), v. obstrictum, the gloss of the Palatina (see the full text below, §11) concludes thus: “ dicit l. quod sic, cum ad officium eius spectat quicquid ex prima amministratione deberet ad secundam rationem transire: ff. mandati, Qui mutuam, §Non omnis” Guido (ed. Venet., 1577, fol. 240rb) reproduces this as: “dic quod sic, cum §Non omnis. la.” But in the original text, dicit l. means dicit lex, i.e. the Roman law in the cited passage (Dig. 17, 1, 56, 2), and Guido mistook the abbreviation l(ex) for the glossator's siglum! Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 76} For Johannes' other works—Apparatus on Compp. III and IV, on the Constitutions of the Fourth Lateran Council, glosses on Comp. V, and Quaestiones disputatae—see Repertor., pp. 254. 357.370.374.383. We shall deal on another occasion with his previously unknown Apparatus on the Arbores consanguinitatis et affinitatis, with the problem of his being the redactor of Comp. IV (cf. Repertorium, p. 372), and with Gillmann's, objections, AKKR, CXVII (1937), 453–466, concerning the Apparatus on the Lateran Constitutions.Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 77} Cf. Repertorium, pp. 93–99, where 35 MSS are listed. Add now seven more: Avranches, Munic. Libr., MS 148; Graz, Univ. Libr., MSS 71 (set v) and 80 (set ii); Klosterneuburg, Canons Reg., MS 87; Krakow, Bibl. Jagiellonska, MS 357 (set ii; information by Vetulani, Dr.); Olmütz, Metrop. Chapter, MS 401 (without Gratian's text); Venice, Marcian Libr., MS lat. IV 117 (set ii). For the earlier strata of the MSS of Graz, Krakow, and Venice, see above, §3, n. 5.—On the other hand, Montecassino, MS 68, listed in Repertorium, p. 98, on a conjectural basis, contains only the later redaction by Bartholomaeus Brixiensis. In some other cases, our conjectures have been confirmed: Klosterneuburg, MS 101 (set iii); Treves, Municipal Libr., MS 907 (set ii); Vienna, Natl. Libr., MS 2082 (set i). The two MSS of Frankfurt and Madrid (Repertorium, pp. 95. 98) remain still unexplored.Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 78} Cf. Repertorium, pp. 103–115, with hundreds of MSS; pp. 116–122 for a peculiar redaction of the fourteenth century.Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 79} On the editions, see Schulte, , Glosse, pp. 26 ff. 91 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 1} Cf. above, §6 B. Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 2} Cf. Repertorium pp. 31 (siglum tentatively attributed to Bernard of Pavia). 45.53.Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 3} Cf. below, §14. Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 4} On D. 50, §Casu quoque (p. c. 36). This complex gloss will be edited and discussed with all its historical implications on another occasion, since at present I have not at my disposal the indispensable variant readings of Laurentius in the Parisian MS lat. 15393 (Lp). The version of the Palatina was published in Kuttner, Dekretsumme , p. 150, but not quite correctly: cf. some emendations in Repertorium, p. 89, n. 2; it might be added that the first words are Fit homicidium ., not Est homicidium, and that the passage towards the end, concerning the distinction a corpore in corpus (cf. Dekretsumme, p. 150, lines 23–24; Repertorium, l. c.) is corrupted by a homoeography in Glos. Pal., to be healed with the aid of Lc: “ et hoc uidetur dicendum, cum est datum dampnum de non corpore in corpus; 〈si uero de corpore in corpus,〉 non sunt promouendi ” The differences between Lc, Glos. Pal., on one side, and Lp on the other side, begin at the passage: “Set dico quod ipso iure ” (Lc, Glos. Pal.) which in Lp reads: “Set b' dicit quod ipso iure ” (cf. Repertorium, p. 90).Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 5} Lc (folios not numbered).—Glos. Pal.: Vatican Libr., MSS Pal. lat. 658 (= P), fol. 56ra; Reg. lat. 977 (= R), fol. 157r. The text appears also in the mixed composition of MS Vat. lat. 1367 (= Ov), fol. 154va.Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 6} Wrong attributions of b.-glosses to Bazianus are found e.g. in Gillmann, , Laur. Hisp., p. 109, n. 1 ff.; in Kuttner, , Dekretsumme, p. 149 f., and “La réserve papale ”, RHD, 4, XVII (1938), 202.221. Paleographical reasons should be sufficient as a warning against attribution to Bazianus in all those cases where the siglum is written b' or b., because these are standard abbreviations for ber .Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 7} Schulte, , QL, I, 154 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 8} Glosses on Gratian: Schulte, , loc.cit. , and Kuttner, , Repertorium , pp. 7. 10. Glosses on the Summa of Joh. Faventinus: Repertorium, p. 143 f. (MSS Angers 370 and Reims 684).Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 9} Disputations by Bazianus are reported in two collections of Quaestiones: Montecassino Abbey, MS 396 (pp. 32–80; 84b–112) and Vienna, Natl. Libr., MS 1064 (fols. 81–91), both still to be analyzed. Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 10} Schulte, , QL, I, 153, n. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 11} Schulte, , Glosse, pp. 57. 58.62; QL, I, 155. The same is true for the Quaestiones .Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 12} Schulte, , QL, I, 154. The latest known writing of Bazianus, a consilium, is dated of April 20, 1192; cf. Repertorium, p. 7, n. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 13} P 36ra, R 127vb.Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 14} For the corresponding gloss of b. on Comp. I, see below, §13, at n. 72. Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 15} P 52vb, R 149va.Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 16} See the glosses on D. 50, p. c. 36 (Dekretsumme, p. 150), and on C. 22, q. 4, c. 22 (below, at n. 34). Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 17} This disfiguration is discussed at length by Schulte, Glosse, pp. 56 ff. 63. Also in the Quaestiones, the siglum is often bar.—I cannot agree with Kantorowicz's proposal to explain this spelling by assuming the glossator's true name to have been Barzianus ; Kantorowicz, H., “De pugna”, Studi di storia e diritto in onore di Enrico Besta, II (Pavia, 1938), 11.Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 18} Cf. the observations regarding sigla for Simon, Stephanus and Silvester, by Juncker, , “Die Summe des Simon von Bisignano und seine Glossen”, ZRGKan, XV (1926), 390 ff. Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 19} E.g., Lilienfeld, Cistercian Monast., MS 223; London, B.M., MS Stowe 378 (Repertorium, p. 28); Paris, Bibl. Nat., MS lat. 3888 (ibid., p. 38); all three of them represent the stage of glossing in the period of Johannes Faventinus.Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 20} Among the MSS of this epoch (cf. above, §4, n. 33) the siglum b. or ber is relatively frequent in the MSS Cues 223, Hereford P VII.3, Oxford, New College 210, Treves, Sem. 8, Vat. lat. 2494, Vercelli XXV, Verona CLXXXIV; one quotation secundum ber also in Treves 906 (cf. Juncker, ZRGKan, XV, 394, note). The siglum is also found in one MS of Simon de Bisignano's epoch: Berlin, State Libr. MS Phill. 1742 (cf. Repertorium, p. 16). Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 21} Schulte, , QL, I, 175–182; Kuttner, , Repertorium, pp. 290. 292 (n. 1).322 f. 387 ff. 398 f., Le Bras, G., “Bernard de Pavie”, Dictionnaire de Droit Canonique, II (1937) 782–789. Bernard's main writings were edited with an excellent introduction, in 1860, by E. Th. A. Laspeyres (see above, §1, n. 1).Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 22} Some unsubstantiated and partly incorrect hints in Repertorium, pp. 29 (n. 1). 31.518.Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 23} Schulte, , QL, I, 176 f., named as Bernard's teachers correctly Gandulph, but wrongly Huguccio and one Johannes Hispanus. This is repeated, although with some reserve, by Le Bras, art. cit., col. 782.—(i) As to Huguccio, chronological reasons alone should suffice to exclude him; and in fact, the one passage where magister meus Vg. is quoted in Bernard's Summa de matrimonio, has been definitely exposed as an interpolation by Kunstmann, , “Das Eherecht des Bischofs Bernhard von Pavia”, AKKR, VI (1861), 219.229, n. 16, and by Gillmann, , Der Katholik, 1904, i, 205; AKKR, CXVI (1936), 115.—(ii) Johannes Hispanus is a personality invented by Schulte as the presumptive author of the Anglo-Norman Summa “Omnis qui iuste” written c. 1186 (Summa Lipsiensis, cf. Repertorium, p. 197). Schulte, QL, I, 176, n. 6, asserted that the citations of meus doctor magister Jo. in Bernard's writings must be referred to that Summa; he brushed aside the obvious chronological and geographical objections, and suppressed the fact that already Kunstmann (art. cit. p. 221) had proved the citations of magister Jo. to fit perfectly in the Summa of Johannes Faventinus (written before 1171).Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 24} Since Bernard cannot have glossed earlier than his teachers—John's and Gandulph's glosses belong to the sixties and early seventies, cf. above, §3—, we must distinguish him from still another master b. whose glosses appear, together with those of Rufinus, in two MSS prior to this period: Cambridge, Sidney Sussex College, MS 101, and London, Chester Beatty Collection, MS 46 (Repertorium, pp. 24. 29). In both these MSS the glosses are written by French or English hands (for the first MS see James, M. R., A Descriptive Catalogue of MSS in the Library of Sidney Sussex College [Cambridge, 1895], p. 123 f.); this b., therefore, was probably a master of one of the Western schools. Note that an unidentified, and certainly not Bolognese, master b. is frequently cited in the Anglo-Norman Summa “Omnis qui iuste” : Schulte, , “Die Summa Decreti Lipsiensis ”, SBWien, LXCI (1870), 45 f. In Repertorium, p. 29, n. 1, I failed to consider this possibility.Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 25} Editions by Laspeyres, pp. 287–306, and by Kunstmann (above, n. 23), pp. 223–262. Additional MSS are mentioned by Gillmann (n. 23) and in Repertorium, p. 292, n. 1. Add further: Montecassino, MS 396 (pp. 1–20); Turin, Natl. Libr., MS D. V 2 (Pasini's no. 880; catal. 516; fols. 99–109); Zwettl, Cistercian Mon., MS 162 (fols. 66–70r).—The question of the date has never been seriously examined, but can be settled as follows: (i) The terminus ad quem (1179) is given by Bernard's own Collectio Parisiensis II (c. 1177–1179), for in the treatise on marriage Bernard cites decretals and other extravagantes still without referring to the titles of that compilation, while later, in his Summa de electione, he used to refer to it. The statement by Friedberg, , Die Canonessammlungen zwischen Gratian und Bernhard von Pavia (Leipzig, 1897), p. 31, viz. that Bernard, when writing Sum. de matr., “had the individual decretals before him generally in the same (textual) shape as they appeared afterwards in Coll. Par. II“, has been misunderstood by Le Bras, art. cit., col. 787, who asserted apodictically that the collection was used in the treatise.—(ii) For the terminus a quo (1173) we have but to examine the dates of Alexander III's six decretals cited in the course of the treatise (ed. Laspeyres nn. 8.11.64.69.79.92). We find: Google Scholar

JL n. 12254, of Nov. 26, 1163–1164 (cf. Repertorium, p. 283).Google Scholar

JL n. 12180, of Jan. 31, 1171–1172 (cf. ibid.)Google Scholar

JL n. 12293, of June 2, 1173–1174 Google Scholar

JL n. 13162, of Sept. 4 (or 1), 1167–1169 (ibid., p. 287)Google Scholar

JL nn. 14055.13970, both of uncertain date.Google Scholar

The treatise, then, was not written before June 2, 1173.Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 26} Cf. Repertorium, p. 290; Le Bras, , art. cit., col. 787 The date of Alexander III's arrival in Venice, terminus a quo for the most recent decretal in this collection (JL n. 14157), was March 24, 1177 (cf. JL before n. 12794), not May 11th, as given in Repertorium, loc. cit.—Bernard wrote also some glosses on this collection; his siglum occurs twice in the MS of Paris, lat. 1566. Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 27} Edition by Laspeyres, pp. 307–323. For the date, cf. Repertorium, p. 290.Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 28} Op. cit. , p. 322, n. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 29} P 53ra, R 149vb. The full text of this gloss is printed below, §11.Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 30} P 28va (not collated with R).Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 31} P 79va, R 228va.—Glos.Ord.: MS Vat.lat. 1367 (set i), fol. 237va.Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 32} A somewhat confused report on this controversy is also found in a gloss of the Apparatus “Servus appellatur” on Comp. III (Laurentius? cf. above §5, n. 46), printed by Gillmann, Laur Hisp. p. 110, note; De coniugio serv., c. Ad nostram (3 Comp. IV, 7, un. = X. IV, 9, 4), v. separavit] “ De isto errore dicunt quidam ba(zianus) bi.(?) quod utriusque conditionis error, et melioris et deterioris, impedit. Hu҇n. uero dicit quod tantum deterioris conditionis .; pro opinione ba. et(!) est argumentum ” (The parentheses are Gillmann's who rightly suspects the text to be corrupted. Perhaps it can be bettered by the following emendations: “. dicunt quidem ba. et ber.; pro opinione ba. et ber. est arg.”). Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 33} The invalidating effect of this error had been previously asserted by Johannes Faventinus; cf. Kunstmann, art. cit. (above, n. 23), p. 221, and the quotation in Bernard of Pavia's De matrim. (ed. Laspeyres, , p. 294; ed. Kunstmann, , p. 234). But in Glos. Pal. “Johannes” is said to have contradicted Huguccio; therefore, he cannot be the Faventinus who wrote before Huguccio. The attribution to Johannes Teutonicus is also inferred by the corresponding references to Nov. 22, 17, in both Pal. and Ord .Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 34} P 65rb, R 187ra.—A lengthy gloss in which b. cites baç. is also found on C. 16, q. 1, c. Monachi (33), v. vagantes .Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 35} It is evident that the citation, ex. i. de sponsal. Requisiuit, presents a modernized form of Bazianus' and Huguccio's original references. For Huguccio, cf. Repertorium, p. 161, n. 1: “ Lucius etiam tertius in illa decretali Requisiuit dicit ” A similar wording must be found in Bazianus' original text, for which, at present, I have no MSS on hand.Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 36} The substitution of Celestine III's Item si quis (2 Comp. II, 16, 7) in R is evidently spurious; also, this decretal would not make the glossator's point, for it permits exceptions in the fulfilment of the oath. Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 37} Repertorium, p. 323; see also below, §18.Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 38} Edition by Laspeyres, , pp. 1–283. Cf. Repertorium, pp. 387 ff. 462, with 23 MSS. Add Montecassino, MS 46 (pp. 1–278: Comp. I with excerpts from the Summa, on the lower margins). The MS of Mr. Vollbehr, formerly in Washington (Repertorium, p. 388) cannot be located at present.—Schulte, QL, I, 181 and Le Bras, , art. cit. (above, n. 21), col. 785, find fault with Bernard's book: they contend that it is not properly a Summa decretalium, but a Summa of Canon Law, with but occasional references to the decretals (among other references: to Gratian, to Roman Law, etc.). This reproach is void, for a Summa decretalium has as its subject the tituli decretalium, i.e. the canonical institutes and concepts expressed by the rubrics of the titles, and not the individual decretals, the explanation of which would make a Lectura, not a Summa.—Also unfounded is Schulte's and Le Bras' further thesis that the book had been originally written before, and only revised after the Compilatio prima .Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 39} Already in Bernard's glosses, Argumenta are frequent: cf. e.g. Laspeyres, p. 323 f., nos. 1.2.6–9.11.17.19.20.23.24.26 (and, developed into Generalia with solutions, nos. 3.22). As a separate collection I found the Argumenta in Melk, Benedictine Monast., MS 333 (formerly F. 33, catal. 190; fols. 252v–254v), beg. “Argumentum quod nullus iure suo priuatur sine culpa” Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 40} On Richard's Generalia, see Repertorium, p. 417 f., with two MSS. Add: Avranches, Munic. Libr., MS 149 (fols. 139–147v); Bamberg, State Libr., MS Can. 45 (formerly P II. 4; fols. 40.1–7 [fragment])—both not identified in Repertorium, pp. 421, n. 2; 422—, and Zwettl, Cist. Mon., MS 162 (fols. 73–82).—For genetic relations between the literary species of Argumenta and Generalia, cf. Repertorium, pp. 3. 239; the relation between Bernard's and Richard's respective works in particular will be discussed on another occasion. Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 41} Repertorium, p. 398 f.; specimens edited by Laspeyres, pp. 327–352. To the MSS, add Zwettl, MS 297 (fols. 86–106); but Novara, Cath. Chapter, MS XCVI (formerly 76; listed as dubious in Repertorium, p. 399) has to be cancelled: it contains, like the MS 225 of Vendôme (wrongly named by Le Bras, art. cit., col. 787), the Casus by Bernard Bottone of Parma on the decretals of Gregory IX.Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 42} Summa de matr., ed. Laspeyres, , p. 294; ed. Kunstmann, , p. 234. Summa titul., IV, 9, §5, ed. Laspeyres p. 154. Bernard discusses the error of the slave who intends to marry a free woman, and vice versa, like master b. in the gloss on C. 29, q. 2, pr. But he does not use the characteristic distinction, in inpari—in pari, nor does he mention the error in meliori, when speaking of unequal spouses. Thus it is not quite certain whether the Palatina refers to him.Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 43} P 60vb, R 169vb–170ra. Also on C. 16, q. 1 §De his vero (p. c. 41; P 57va), Bishop Bernard is quoted expressly as “ b. tamen papi(ensis) ” Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 44} For instance, master b.'s important distinctions on homicide (Kuttner, , Dekretsumme, p. 150; above, §7, n. 4) are entirely different from those given by Bernardus Pap., Summa titul., V, 10 (ed. Laspeyres, , p. 220 ff.); or, master b.'s admission of the defendant's purgatio canonica, even after his crime has been attested by witnesses (below, §12, at n. 64) is contrary to Bern. Pap., Summa titul., V, 29, §3 (ed. Laspeyres, p. 259): “ Praeterea si accusator offert probationem et reus offert purgationem, probatio et non purgatio est audienda, quia tunc demum recipitur, cum deficit accusator.” Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 45} Cf. below, ch. III. Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 46} Modena, , Bibl. Estense, MS a. R. 4.16, fol. 40ra. Further examples see below, §19.Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 47} Cf. Summa titul., III, 30, §3 (ed Laspeyres, , p. 105).Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 48} In Lc, such additions are found e.g. on D. 5, c. Ad eius (4), v. prohibentur; C. 16, q. 7, c. Sicut Domini (19). For the Vatican glosses, see below, §14. Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 49} MSS Arras 500, St.-Omer 476; see above, §7 Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 50} P 53ra, R 149vb.Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 51} On the misinterpretation of this passage by Guido de Baysio, see above, §6, n. 75. Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 52} Schulte, , QL, I, 151; Kuttner, , Repertorium, p. 7, n. 3. The glosses of Magister M. on Stephen of Tournai, which I mentioned loc. cit., were, however, more probably written by a master of the French school, perhaps by Matthew of Angers; cf. Kuttner, , “Les débuts de l'école canoniste française”, Studia et docum. hist. et iuris, IV (1938), 201, n. 52. Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 53} Cf. above, §3, at n. 18. Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 54} Chronicon Abbatiae de Evesham, ed. Dunn Macray, W. (London, 1863, Rolls Series), p. 153. The passage has been noted, but without identification of the glossator, by Pollock and Maitland, The History of English Law before the Time of Edward I, I (2d ed., Cambridge, 1898), 122, n. 1.—Thomas engaged, besides Melendus, “quendam militem Papiensem, Bertrandum nomine, dominum legum, qui nulli totius Lumbardiae post dominum Assonem (i.e. Azonem) habebatur secundus” (this civilian lawyer and knight of Pavia is otherwise not known); “magistrum Petrum Beneventanum, capellanum domini Papae, postea cardinalem et episcopum Portuensem”, i.e. Petrus Collivaccinus, the future redactor of the Compilatio tertia (cf. Repertorium, p. 355; for his biography, see Heyer, F, ZRGKan, VI [1916], 395–405); “magistrum Willielmum Provincialem, clericum domini cancellarii”, who was a notary of the Chancery under Innocent III (cf. Bresslau, H., Handbuch der Urkundenlehre, I [2d ed., Leipzig 1912], 248), and Vice-Chancellor of the Roman Church, 1220–1222 (cf. Baumgarten, P M., Von der apostolischen Kanzlei [Köln, 1908], p. 73).—For the variant spellings of Melendus' name (Merandus, Monendus, Melandus. Merendus, etc.) cf. Gillmann, , Zur Inventaris., p. 57.Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 55} Chron. Evesh., loc. cit.: “Hunc, cum regeret scholas Bononiae, dominus Wintoniensis Romam adduxerat, et stetit ibi pro domino rege Angliae contra monachos Cantuarienses super iure eligendi Cantuariensem episcopum.” Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 56} Loc. cit.: “ quem postea tempore concilii vidi episcopum.” At that time, the only Spanish bishop by the name of Melendus is found at Osma; cf. Eubel, I, 383.Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 57} See the document of 1209 in Sarti, I, 381, n. 9. For the short-lived school of Vicenza (1204–1209) in general, cf. Savigny, III, 307 ff. Melendus cannot have been one of the founders of that school, as Sarti, loc. cit., and Schulte, QL, I, 151, presumed, since Thomas Marlborough found him in 1205 still teaching at Bologna. Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 58} Kuttner, , Dekretsumme, p. 158.Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 59} Above, §9, at n. 30. Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 60} P 46va, R 131vb.Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 61} Cf. below, §15, at n. 101. Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 62} Dekretsumme, p. 167 Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 63} Ibid., p. 149.Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 64} P 30rb, R 91vb.Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 65} See below, §25. Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 66} Except a few examples from the Vatican MS: below, §14. Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 67} Above, §8. Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 68} Above, §1. Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 69} Below, §21. Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 70} MS of Modena (above, n. 46), fol. 39vb. Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 71} E.g. Glos. Pal. on C. 16, q. 1, c. In sacris (56), v. vel beneficiis] “. h. dicit ., b. uero dicit ., et nos, secundum b.” (P 57vb, R 162vb). On cc. 57.58, eod., see below, §15, at nn. 99.100. Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 72} MS of Modena, fol. 36ra. Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 73} Cf. above, §8, at n. 13. Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 74} See below, Appendix. Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 75} E.g. the gloss on C. 15, q. 6, c. 4: above §7, n. 5. Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 76} Ov 306vb.Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 77} I failed, however, to find the dictum among his writings. Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 78} Ov 4va, P 2vb.Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 79} Ov 171vb, P 62rb. In Glos. Pal., the problem is treated at length, and the author, before quoting master b.'s opinion, writes, among other remarks: “ alias morte mandatoris uel mandatarii non extinguitur huiusmodi preceptum, ut dixi in aut. ut nulli iudicum, §Et hoc uero, coll. ix. ”; attributing thus to himself the explanation of Nov. 134, 6, which, according to Bernard, had been offered by the civilian Azo.Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 80} Ov 108va. Regarding the addition by W (William Vasco), see below, Appendix, at n. 52.Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 81} Ov 170vb.Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 82} Bartholomaeus Brixiensis, by placing in the second redaction of the Ordinaria the siglum Jo. before, and his own siglum B. behind the last sentence, stole this passage and made it appear as a reference to his own Quaestiones. The Quaestiones disputatae of Johannes Teutonicus to which the original gloss referred are preserved in a collection of Klosterneuburg, cf. Repertorium, p. 254; below, §24, n. 16. As to the Bolognese custom of naming Quaestiones after the day on which they were disputed in class (here: dominicales), cf. Savigny, , III, 570, n. a .Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 83} Ov 102va.Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 84} Ov 103ra.Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 85} Ov 163va.Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 86} The two decretals appear, under the same rubrics as in Comp. III, in Bernard's Coll. Rom., II, 15, 4 and II, 19, 1. They regard the same case and were issued on the same day: June 17, 1206 (Po. nn. 2812.2813). Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 87} Further examples are found in Ov, fols. 89rb. 90rb. 108va. 110va. 121r. 125va (“hanc solutionem approbat b.”). 147rb. 160va. 236ra. 244va. 289vb. Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 88} Cf. Glos. Ord. on D. 95, c. 1, v. concedimus; on De cons., D. 2, c. Sicut (2), v calix (both texts printed in Dekretsumme, pp. 158. 149); also on De cons., D. 3, c. 1, v. festivitates (printed in Kuttner, “La réserve papale ”, RHD, 4, XVII [1938], 220 f.). In all these cases, I previously supposed the siglum b. to denote Bazianus. Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 89} The following texts have been collated in the Vatican MSS Pal. lat. 624 (= Op ₁), 625 (= Op ₂) and Ov, for the original Ordinaria. Most of them are also found in the printed editions of the second (Barth. Brix.) redaction. Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 90} The full text is given above, §8, at n. 13. Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 91} Cf. above, §9, at n. 34. Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 92} See both texts above, §9, at n. 31. Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 93} Cf. Dekretsumme, p. 148.Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 94} P 97vb, R 280ra. See also the report of the Apparatus “Servus appellatur” on Comp. III (cf. above, §5, n. 46), De penitent., c. Deus qui (V, 20, 1 = X.V, 38, 8), v. consuetis festivitatibus] “Pasca, pentecosten communicare. Set ber. (scr. b'.) de festo pascali hoc concedebat ” (printed by Gillmann, , Laur. Hisp., p. 111, note, who relates the citation to Bazianus).Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 95} The full text is in Dekretsumme, p. 150.Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 96} The full text is given above, §9, at n. 30. Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 97} Cf. above, §8, at n. 15. Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 98} P 53ra, R 149va.Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 99} P 57vb, R 163ra.Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 100} PR eod .Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 101} P 66rb, R 187va. A further example is found on C. 32, q. 5, c. Proposito (4), v. adultera, where the gloss “Videtur augustinus male secundum canones” is given with the siglum b. in the Palatina, unsigned in Op ₁ Op ₂, and given with h. in Ov. (The continuation of the same gloss in the printed editions of the Ordinaria belongs to the second redaction). Cf. also the incorrect attribution of a gloss “B. tamen dicit ” to G. (Gandulph?), in Glos. Ord. on C. 32, q. 2, c. 13; and of a gloss “B. uero et M ” to “h. uero et laur. et M.“, in Glos. Ord. on C. 33, q. 2, c. 14 (Dekretsumme, pp. 148, n. 1; 167).Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 102} Nothing is found in Glos. Ord. that corresponds to the Palatina on D. 50, p. c. 36 (Dekretsumme, p. 150); C. 2, q. 1, c. 18 (above, §12, at n. 64); C. 11, q. 1, c. 41 (above, at n. 60); C. 13, q. 2, c. 5 (above, §11); C. 16, q. 1, c. 56 (above, §13, n. 71); C. 17, q. 1, p. c. 4 (above, §10, at n. 43).Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 103} Cf. on these apparatuses, Repertorium, pp. 327 f. 346. 358 f.; below, §17, n. 15.Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 104} This is, e.g. in the Glos. Ord. on Comp. III, his policy towards Johannes Galensis. I cannot subscribe to the harmless explanation proposed by Gillmann, , “Des Johannes Galensis Apparat ”, AKKR, CXVIII (1938), 200: “One could suppose that Tancred had the apparatus by Johannes Galensis not on hand” Other examples of Tancred's unfairness could be easily supplied.Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 105} Cf. Savigny, IV, 127 ff.; Genzmer's article (cited above, §6, n. 48), p. 395; Kantorowicz, H. and Buckland, W W, Studies in the Glossators of the Roman Law (Cambridge, 1938), p. 87 f., and passim, s. v. Gosiani.—Whether Rogerius belonged to the orthodox wing or to the Gosiani, is disputed between Kantorowicz-Buckland, pp. 124. 155.180, and Meijers, E. M., “Le conflit entre l'équité et la loi chez les premiers glossateurs”, Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis, XVII (1939/1940), 119, n. 1; 120 f. Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 106} For his life and works, cf. Schulte, , QL, II, 186 ff. Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 107} Cf. Repertorium, p. 87 f., above, §6 C. Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 108} In the following notes, Guido is cited from the Venice edition, 1577 Texts which refer to Bernard simply by the initial are omitted. Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 109} Ed. Ven., fol. 136vb; cf. above, §12, at n. 64.Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 110} Ven. 203ra; cf. above, §8, at n. 13.Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 111} Ven. 211rb; cf. above, §12, at n. 60.Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 112} Ven. 256vb; cf. above, §9, n. 34.Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 113} Ven. 261 vb; cf. above, at n. 100.Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 114} Ven. 344va; cf. above, §9, at n. 31. In this case, however, we can not be certain whether in ea glosa (i.e. of the Ordinaria) the opinion of the tertii was that of Bernard of Compostella, or that of Bernard of Pavia—or of both. Cf. above, §10, n. 42.Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 115} Ven. 392 va; cf. above, §15, at n. 94.Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 116} Cf. above, §1. Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 1} Above, §1, n. 5. Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 2} Ibid., n. 6.Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 3} §§10.13. Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 4} Blume, F, Bibliotheca librorum manuscriptorum Italica (Gottingae, 1834), pp. 36. 37.40; cf. Repertorium, pp. 317.340.352. Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 5} The siglum is sil., or m(agister). sil. Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 6} Gillmann, , “Magister Silvester als Glossator”, AKKR, CVI (1926), 154; Post, G., “Additional glosses of Johannes Galensis and Silvester ”, AKKR, CXIX (1939), 373.Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 7} Repertorium, pp. 18. 355. 359. For Glosses on Gratian, see also Gillmann, , art. cit., p. 149; on Comp. I: ibid., p. 154; on Comp. III : Gillmann, , Laur. Hisp., p. 117, and Post, “Some unpublished glosses ”, AKKR, CXVII (1937), 405.414.422 f.; AKKR, CXIX, 369–373; So-called Laur., pp. 25 f. 29.—One short gloss on the decretal collection of Gilbert (cf. n. 9) was published by Juncker, , ZRGKan, XV (1926), 486, n. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 8} The unprinted rescript, addressed to the Chapter of Braga, is calendared in Auvray, , Les registres de Grégoire IX (Paris, 1890 ff.), n. 318, from the Vatican Archives, Registr. Vat. 14, fols. 125v–126, which I have checked. Silvester, at the time dean of the chapter, had been invalidly elected; the Pope quashed the election, but conferred the archbishopric to him by sovereign provision, praising him as uirum fame celebris et note scientie. The document gives Silvester's name only as Magistrum S. Decanum uestrum; but the full name of Archbishop Silvestre Godinho of Braga, 1229–1244, (Eubel, I, 144 has it wrongly: Simon) is recorded in other sources. Cf. on his pontificate, Fortunato de Almeida, História da Igreja em Portugal, I (Coimbra, 1910), 405.411.609; João Pedro Ribeiro, Dissertações cronológicas e críticas, V (2d ed., Lisboa, 1896), 143; Reuter, E. A., Königtum und Episkopat in Portugal (above, §5, n. 47), pp. 31 ff. 37 The decretal X.V, 31, 18, and other papal letters were addressed to him, cf. Reuter, p. 31, n. 171.Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 9} On Gilbert's collection, see Repertorium, pp. 310–313, and the full analysis of the first redaction by von Heckel, R., Gilb. Alan. (above, §1, n. 1). Of the second redaction (Repertorium , p. 312), two new copies have been discovered: Salzburg, St. Peter's Abbey, MS a. IX. 18 (fols. 118–168), and Vercelli, Cathedral Chapter, MS LXXXIX (fols. 1–50r), both annotated with Gilbert's own glosses.Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 10} Cf. above, §6 n. 52. Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 11} Repertorium, p. 355; for the (mostly indirect) dependence of Comp. III upon the two collections, see the list in Schulte, , “Die Compilationen Gilberts und Alanus”, SBWien, LXV (1870), 695 ff.; Friedberg, , Quinque Compilationes Antiquae (Lipsiae, 1882), p. xxiv f; Heckel, , Gilb. Alan., p. 172.Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 12} The compilations of Modena and of Paris were believed hitherto (also in Repertorium, pp. 351. 352) to be copies of the Comp. II. A full analysis of both of them will be given on another occasion. For the further contents of MS Paris lat. 15398 (among them also Comp. II: fols. 74–105v), see Repertorium, pp. 302.338.351.363.391; below, nn. 15.54; for its provenience and further bibliography, see Post, , So-called Laur., p. 8, n. 14. A collection of Tortosa, Cathedral Chapter, MS 160 (Coll. Dertusensis III; cf. Repertorium, p. 319), may belong to the same type of recompilations.Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 13} Repertorium, p. 345. For the relation of John's collection to Gilbert and Alan, cf. Heckel, , Gilb. Alan., p. 173 f. Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 14} I choose this name in order to avoid confusion with the so-called Collectio Mutinensis, in the miscellaneous volume of the Bibl. Estense, MS ā.0.6.9 (lat. 164, formerly V.C. 11), item no. 9. Kantorowicz, , ZRGKan, XII (1922), 427, n. 4, citing the MS with a wrong number (49), believed this text to be a collection of decretals made after 1179 (cf. Repertorium, p. 285); actually, it contains nine older canons from Gratian (MS cit., item no. 9, pp. i–ii), and the statutes of the third Lateran Council (ibid. pp. ii–xiiii).Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 15} Tancred published both his Apparatus on Comp. I and Comp II for the first time c. 1210–1215, and revised and re-edited them c. 1220: cf. Repertorium, 327 f. 346; RHD, 4, XVII (1938), 203, n. 3; Gillmann, , Zur Inventaris., pp. 82–85. —MSS of the respective first redactions are more numerous than generally believed: besides those mentioned already by Gillmann and by myself (RHD, loc. cit.), I found copies in Florence, Laurentian Libr., MSS S. Croce III sin. 6 (Comp. I: fols. 3–96v) and S. Croce IV sin. 2 (Comp. II: fols. 79–129); Lisbon, National Libr., MS Alcob. 381 (formerly 305; Comp. II: fols. 76v–116v); Padua, Antonian Libr., MS II. 35 (Compp. I and II); Paris, Bibl. Nat., MSS lat. 15398 (Comp. I, fragm.: fols. 3–52v), lat. 15996 (Comp. I), and nouv. acq. lat. 2127 (Compp. I and II: fols. 1–57v.58–89); Treves, Munic. Libr., MSS 864 (Comp. I: fols. 1–66) and 876 (Comp. I: fols. 1–21.32–82 [misbound]; both MSS according to information by the Rev. P. J. Kessler); Vercelli, Cath. Chapter, MS XXIII (Compp. I and II: fols. 1–54v.55–86v); and here in M.—On Comp. III, Tancred published only one Apparatus (c. 1220), but earlier, his private notes on that compilation had been circulated without his knowledge by certain students; cf. Repertorium, p. 358, and Post, So-called Laur., p. 30, nn. 66.67 Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 16} See below, §27 Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 17} Such supplementary excerpts from later collections, made in order to integrate an earlier one, were not infrequent in the schools. To this category belongs, e.g., the Collectio Abrincensis, abstracted from Coll. Sangermanensis as a supplement to Comp. I (Repertorium, p. 299); or the excerpt from Comp. III in Fulda, Landesbibl., MS D.5 (fols. 215v–246) which has the function of integrating Gilbert's and Alan's collections (Heckel, , Gilb. Alan., p. 126); and other similar texts.Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 18} The excerpt ends with 2 Comp. V, 22, 2. On Blume's mistake, caused by this item, see below, §27 Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 19} For Bernard of Pavia as a glossator of Comp. I, see Repertorium, p. 323. Solutiones contrariorum and Generalia are already found among the specimens edited by Laspeyres, Bern. Pap., pp. 323–326 (nos. 3.14.15.16.22) and by Gillmann, , “Des Cod. Halen. Ye 52 Glossenbruchstück ”, AKKR, CVIII (1928), 486 ff.; also below, §19, at n. 30.—To the earliest mixed compositions, usually including Bernard's glosses, we can add: Admont, Bened. Monast., MS 55 (fols. 1–85v: set i); Avranches, Munic. Libr., MS 149 (fols. 7–77v: set i); Lisbon, Natl. Libr., MS Alcob. 173 (formerly 304; fols. 10v–115r); Montecassino, MS 46 (pp. 1–178: set i; abstracts from the Summa in set ii: above §10, n. 38).Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 20} For this Apparatus cf. Repertorium, p. 324 f. Besides the MS of Modena, we can add: Avranches, MS 149 (set ii); Salzburg, St. Peter's Abbey, MS a. IX. 18 (fols. 2–117: set i); Zwettl, Cistercian Monast., MS 34 (fols. 2–81v, with but fragments of the glosses, on fols. 2–6v. 33–42). Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 21} Begins fol. 1ra, on De constit., c. Canonum (1 Comp. I, 1, 1 = X. I, 2, 1), v. custodiantur] “Con(stituti)o ergo sciatur Ut enim Boetius ait: malum nun (!) fugitur nisi cognitum ”; c. Cognoscentes (2 = X. I, 2, 2)] “Pone casum: constitutum est ut nulli detur dignitas infra xxv. annum b.” The last glosses, fol. 76r, are on De reg. iur., c. Indignum (1 Comp. V, 37, 13 = X. V, 41, 11)] “Collige casum extra ” (= Richard, cf. Repertorium, p. 325); c. Quamvis (14 = X. V, 41, 10)] “jnfra di. lxxxi. Dictum c. ult. in fine” (= Richard, ibid.); v. excusatio] “Nonne pro spiritualibus episcopi adquirendis uel concedendis. b.” Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 22} For mixed compositions, based on Richard's work, see Repertorium, p. 325. Also the MSS of Lambeth Palace, 105, and Worcester Cathedral Chapter, F 122 (Repertorium, p. 335) should be listed in this group, and not as copies of Richard's Apparatus. Add further: Admont, MS 55 (fols. 1–85v: set ii, together with glosses by Petrus Hispanus), and two anonymous commentaries, written without the decretal text, in Klosterneuburg, Canons Regular, MS 1045 (fols. 1–7v. 9), beg. “Ad iuste iudicandum”; and in Zwettl, MS 162 (fols. 1–48v, shortly mentioned in Repertorium, p. 392), beg. “Materia auctoris in hoc opere” Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 23} M, fol. 70ra.Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 24} M 3ra, and repeatedly.Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 25} Cf. Repertorium, p. 53; below, Appendix, at n. 26. He was created a Cardinal in 1206, Bishop of A₁bano in 1213; cf. Eubel I, 4.—Glosses in M: 1v. 4ra. 20rb. 28ra. 59vb, etc .Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 26} In the following examples, the references to Gilbert and Alan are given with the numbers as used in the analysis by R. von Heckel; for Alan, the corresponding numbers of the unpublished second redaction (see above, §6, n. 52) are added in parentheses from my notes, taken in Vercelli, MS LXXXIX. References to Bernard are given as in Singer's analysis. Google Scholar

M 53ra: “ ex. Cle(mentis). iii. Martinus bertam. con. g. ”: Gilb. IV, 6, 1 = 2 Comp. IV, 6, 1 (X. IV, 11, 4).Google Scholar

M 53rb: ex. in(nocentii). de conuers. coniug. Ex parte, conp. b'.; ex. jn. c. Fraternitatis, conp. b.“: Bern. Compost. III, 26, 1; IV, 11, un. = 3 Comp. III, 25, 1; IV, 11, un. (X. III, 32, 14; IV, 15, 6).Google Scholar

M 53vb: “ ex. jn. de usuris, conp. ala. Illo uos. ”: Alan. V, 11, 3 (V, 12, 6) = 3 Comp. III, 17, 1 (X. III, 21, 4).Google Scholar

M 54rb: “ ex. alex. t(it). de penit. et remiss. c. Quod quidam, conp. ala. ”: Alan. V, 20, 4 (2d ed. vacat) = 2 Comp. V, 17, 3 (X. V, 38, 5).Google Scholar

M 54v: “ ex. cele(stini). c. Quod dei timorem, conp. ala.; ex. de religiosis et transeunt. ad relig. c. Consulti sumus, conp. b' ”: Alan. III, 16, 4 (III, 16, 4) and Bern. Compost. III, 25, 7 = 3 Comp. III, 27, 1 and III, 24, 7 (X. III, 35, 5 and III, 31, 20).Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 27} Above, at n. 23. Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 28} Above, §10, at n. 46. Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 29} M 2rb.Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 30} M 28rb. Because of the repetition in set iii, the gloss of set i has been subsequently cancelled, from the words ff. quis a quo to the end, by the corrector's remark va-cat .Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 31} M 40rb.Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 32} M 40va.Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 33} The reference, ut ibi, is to the gloss printed above, §10, at n. 46. Another example below, §20, at n. 45. Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 34} See above, §13. Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 35} M 63r.Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 36} On Cardinals of metropolitan and cathedral churches outside of Rome, see P Hinschius, Das Kirchenrecht der Katholiken und Protestanten, I (Berlin, 1869), 318 f.; for the Cardinals of Compostella in particular, ibid., p. 319, n. 4. The title cardinalis became reserved to the Roman Cardinals as late as 1567, by Pius V Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 37} But caution is indicated for the unsigned glosses. I observed, e.g., that the unsigned explanations of the title De homicidio (1 Comp. V, 10) are mostly elaborated on the basis of Richard's glosses, and often opposed to Bernard's theory of imputation, as developped in his gloss on D. 50, p. c. 36 (Kuttner, Dekretsumme, p. 150; cf. above, §7, n. 4). Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 38} See the glosses: “Pone casum ” (above, n. 21), “Set pone quod ad eos ” (below, at n. 44), “Quidam in mortis articulo ” (below, at n. 55); other glosses opening with “Pone sic ”, “Pone quod ”, etc., are very frequent. Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 39} De testibus, c. Cum A. de Plano (1 Comp. II, 13, 6), v. publicate] “Nota quod publicatis attestionibus, et in ea opinione est aço, ut audiui. Set numquid ” The gloss is signed by p(elagius) and b' (M 20rb).Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 40} Besides Azo, the Roman Law glossators Albericus, Bulgarus, Cacciavillanus, Johannes Bassianus, are quoted. Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 41} M 58ra.Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 42} On the political background and implications of the decretal Causam, see Cheney, Mary, “The Compromise of Avranches of 1272 and the Spread of Canon Law in England”, English Historical Review, LVI (1941), 190.Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 43} See however the gloss on I, 4, 1, above, at n. 29.—For Bernard and Melendus in the Palatina, see above, §12. Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 44} M 1va.Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 45} i.e. Bernard of Pavia. Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 46} M 59vb.Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 47} By putting a dot under the b, the scribe changed the doubtful bal. into al. But this “emendation” which suggests the name of Alanus has neither transcriptional nor historical probability. Alan's Apparatus on Comp. I appeared after 1207 (above §6, n. 52), i.e. after Bernard's glosses (c. 1205–1206; below, §21); also the English master is nowhere else quoted by the Compostellan. The mysterious bal. returns on fol. 12ra (“ quod ugo concedit, bal. uero contra b'”) and fol. 32vb. Probably the decretist Bazianus is meant: the spelling bas(ianus) occurs sometimes in MSS (cf. Gillmann, , AKKR, CVII [1927], 640, n. 4), and a semi-uncial s could easily be misread as l .Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 48} Above, §3. Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 49} Repertorium, p. 324: c. 1193–1198. Add to the mixed compositions containing his glosses: Admont, MS 55 and Lambeth, MS 105 (above, §18, n. 22).Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 50} Repertorium, p. 414. He probably was also the author of two small treatises on procedure, beg. (i) “Ad summariam notitiam consueti cursus causarum”, and (ii) “Quoniam utilissimum fore putaui”, both of which will be discussed on another occasion.Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 51} Petrus Hispanus magister decretorum signs a document in Bologna, March 31, 1223: cf. Sarti, I, 363, n. 6 (and p. 626 where the date is misprinted); Chartularium Studii Bonon. III (Bologna 1916), 197 He signs as magister Petrus Spagnolus in. Padua, March 27, 1229: cf. Gloria, , p. 544.Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 52} On Pedro Salvadores, Bishop of Porto (d. 1247), cf. Auvray (above, §17, n. 8), nos. 2792.2812; Almeida, (ibid.), pp. 293. 405.411.570.632; Reuter (above, §5, n. 47), pp. 30.33 f. 37.39 f.—Eubel, I, 406 dates the beginning of Pedro's pontificate as of 1231.Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 53} Cf. Repertorium, p. 54.Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 54} In Repertorium, p. 16, Petrus Brito was wrongly classed among the authors of the twelfth century. Actually, he was active as a glossator of Comp. I until after 1216; cf. Gillmann, , Zur Inventaris., p. 58 f.; “Petrus Brito und Martinus Zamorensis ”, AKKR, CXX (1940), 60–64. Also in a newly discovered French Apparatus on Comp. I, written c. 1205–1210 (beg. “In quibusdam libris”: Paris, Bibl. Nat., MS lat. 15398, fols. 204–279), references to the teaching of P B. are frequently found. For additions by brito to Laurentius, see above, §6 B.—Probably he was a member not of the Bolognese, but of a Western school, as the quotations by the Parisian Apparatus and by Geoffroy of Poitiers (cf. Repertorium, p. 16) would suggest; he may be the magister Petrus Prepositi, rector ecclesie S. Germani in Cerulo, of the diocese of Le Mans (Brittany), who obtained from Pope Honorius III, on April 28, 1218, certain privileges while he stayed in scholis or in the service of the English Ex-Queen Berengaria: Regesta Honorii Papae III , ed. Pressuti, P, I (Romae, 1888), n. 1270.Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 55} M 37ra.Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 56} Already the Roman jurisconsult Julianus gave this ingenious solution in the cited lex of the Digest; Petrus de Cardo only paraphrases it. Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 57} References to Gilbert and Alan (second redaction in parentheses) as above, n. 26. The rubrics of titles in these two collections are added only where they do not result from Bernard's citations. Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 58} From the context of Bernard's gloss, it results that the passage “Quoniam autem sub huiusmodi forma ” is meant, and not the section “Quoniam autem per dilatoriam ” (Alan., de except. II, 10, 2 [II, 11, 3] = 3 Comp. II, 16, 3 [X. II, 25, 4]).Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 59} This is the decretal Super consultatione which Bernard later, in the epilogue of his own collection, rejected as spurious, cf. Singer, , Bern. Comp., p. 115, ed. p. 116.Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 60} As the chapter De testibus stands in Gilbert under the rubric De exceptionibus, the text of M might be due to a homoeographic slip of the scribe. Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 61} Cf. Heckel, , Gilb. Alan., p. 219 for the considerable differences of this text in Gilbert from the official collections where the chapter begins with the words Cum dilectus, and is much shorter.Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 62} “ex. de fi. eps.” M. Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 63} Cf. Heckel, , p. 319, for the particularities of Alan's text.Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 64} In this gloss, on De sepult., c. Cum super quosdam (1 Comp. III, 24, 8 = X. III, 28, 8), Bernard indulges in a pun: “Ex. ti. de testam. Certificari certificabit te super hac diuersitate” Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 65} Alanus attributes the decretal to Celestine III (ed. Heckel, , Gilb. Alan., p. 317); the same inscription is given in the spurious appendix of two MSS of Gilbert (H and L: V, 16, 5); cf. Repertorium, p. 313. On the other hand, the Collectio Palatina II, an offspring of Gilbert, written c. 1204 (cf. op. cit., p. 314 ff.), has this decretal calendared in V, 14, 26 with the inscription Idem, meaning Innocent III.Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 66} M 2va (i, ii). 20vb (i, ii). 33vb (i, ii). 38 vb. 50v (i, ii). 67rb (ii).Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 67} M 20rb. 28rb (ii). 67rb (i). 75ra (i). But for the first case, see above, n. 60.Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 68} M 1rb. 12ra. 18ra. 20vb (iii). 28rb (i). 31ra. 33vb (iii). 75ra (ii).Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 69} The result would be the same, if we substituted for Gilbert the Coll. Palat. II, derived c. 1204 from his collection (n. 65). But a consultation of Palat. II by Bernard is unlikely, as its titles included many of the materials that later were to be recompiled by Alanus; and there would be no reason why Bernard should have missed them all in the pertinent rubrics. Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 70} Above, §1, n. 6. Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 71} Tancred mentions Bernard occasionally, e.g. on Comp. I, De eo qui cognov. consang., c. De illo (IV, 13, 4), v occultum] “Ita quod probari; arg. est pro opinione melendi hyspani ex. ii. de diuort. Comes W.; ex. ii. eod. tit. Super eo (2 Comp. IV, 13, 2; IV, 7, 1). b' et lau. dicunt et respondent illis decretalibus c. ult. Vinc.—Ego approbo opinionem laur, et b' cum illa distinctione quam fecit innoc. iii. jnfra de sent. excomm. Inquisitioni, lib. iii. (3 Comp. V, 21, 17 = X. V, 39, 44). t.” For the full text of this gloss, cf. Gillmann, AKKR, CV (1925), 155, n. 1. The b' who is cited here among other Spaniards (Melendus, Laurentius, Vincentius), and as discussing decretals younger than Comp. I, must be the Compostellan, although I have at present no opportunity to check whether such a gloss is found in M.—Also, in the Apparatus “Servus appellatur“, a gloss on Comp. III, De rescript., c. Sedes apostolica (I, 2, 4 = X. I, 3, 15), v. minores, is signed by b. Tancred, however, gives the same gloss with the siglum of Laurentius; cf. Gillmann, , Laur Hisp., p. 8, n. 1; Post, , So-called Laur., p. 10, n. 22.Google Scholar

^{page 320 note 1} For general information, see Kantorowicz, H., “The Quaestiones disputatae of the Glossators”, Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis, XVI (1938/1939), 1–67, which is the best study on civilian Quaestiones. See also: Nicolini, U., Pillii Medicinensis Quaestiones sabbatinae (Modena, 1933); Genzmer, E., “Die justinianische Kodifikation und die Glossatoren” (above, §6, n. 48), p. 415 f.; “Seckel und Ugo Nicolini über die Quaestionen des Pillius”, ZRGRom, LV (1935), 315 ff.—For canonical Quaestiones, see Repertorium, pp. 243 ff., 423 ff. Comparative notes also in Kuttner, “Zur neuesten Glossatorenforschung”, Studia et documenta historiae et iuris, VI (1940), 286 ff., 303 ff.—The best summaries on theological Quaestiones are found in Martin, R. M., Les oeuvres de Robert de Melun, I (Louvain, 1932), xxxii–xlvi; Paré-Brunet-Tremblay, La Renaissance du XII ^e siècle: Les écoles et l'enseignement (Paris-Ottawa, 1933), p. 128 ff.; Lacombe, G. and Landgraf, A., “The Quaestiones of Cardinal Stephen Langton”, The New Scholasticism, III (1929), 154 ff.; IV (1930), 162 ff.; and particularly in Landgraf, A., “Quelques collections de ‘Quaestiones’ de la seconde moitié du XII^e siècle”, Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale, VI (1934), 368–393; VII (1935), 113–128. Google Scholar

^{page 320 note 2} We are not dealing here with quaestiones incidentally raised and solved by the glossators in their lectures, as are frequently found in the apparatuses of glosses; e.g. above, §20, n. 38. On the parallel problem of theological quaestiones originating from the lectio, and quaestiones outside the lectio, see Martin, , op. cit. , p. xliii; Lacombe-Landgraf., art. cit., IV, 162 f.; Landgraf, art. cit., VII, 124.Google Scholar

^{page 320 note 3} The distinction between Quaestiones disputatae, catechetical questions, and Quaestiones legitimae, has been worked out by Kantorowicz and Buckland, Studies in the Glossators (above, §15, n. 105), p. 129 ff.; additions and canonical parallels in Kuttner, art. cit. (n. 1), p. 304 ff. A theological analogy to the Quaestiones legitimae (decretales) is offered by the Quaestiones on contraria, mentioned by Landgraf, art. cit., VII, 122 f. On primitive (didactic) questions without dialectical disputation, see also Grabmann, M., Geschichte der scholastischen Methode, II (Freiburg, 1911), 16 ff., 25 ff.; Weisweiler, H., Das Schrifttum der Schule Anselms von Laon (Münster, 1936), p. 165 ff. Google Scholar

^{page 320 note 4} This literary species—a forerunner of the form adopted by St. Thomas in the Summa theologiae—is almost unknown to modern authorities. Some hints in Landgraf, art. cit., VII, 122; cf. also Kuttner, art. cit., p. 305, n. 43, where the canonical Summa quaestionum by the English master Honorius (written c. 1185–1190) is mentioned. This work, previously known imperfectly as Quaestiones decretales Bambergenses I (cf. Repertorium, p. 424), exists in at least six MSS: to the three listed loc. cit., add: Laon, Munic. Libr., MS 371 bis (fols. 171–176v; a fragment not identified in Repertorium, p. 255); Douai, Munic. Libr., MS 640 (formerly 584; fols. 1–42va); Zwettl, Cistercian Monast., MS 162 (fols. 179–213). On the authorship of master Honorius—the same whose struggle for the archdeaconry of Richmond has been told at length by Roger Hoveden, Chronicon, ed. Stubbs, IV (London, 1871, Rolls Series), 52.89.158 f. 177 ff.—, and on other Summae quaestionum of his school, including the newly discovered work by Richardus Anglicus (Montecassino, MS 396 [pp. 191–247] and Zwettl, MS 162 [fols. 145–173]), we shall have to report in a forthcoming essay on early English canonists. See also below, n. 17, no. vii (Summa Quaest. Vindobonensis).Google Scholar

^{page 320 note 5} Cf. Kantorowicz, , Quaest. disp., p. 32 f.; Landgraf, , art. cit., VII, 113 ff. Google Scholar

^{page 320 note 6} The outstanding examples of such families in Civil Law are the Bulgarus-group, the Johannes Bassianus-group, the Pillius-Roffredus-Hugolinus-group; cf. Kantorowicz, , art. cit., pp. 1–17 Theological examples in Lacombe-Landgraf, passim; Landgraf, art. cit., VII, 114.116.121.—A canonical example for such varying reportationes of the same stock are the Quaestiones Palatinae I, Bambergenses I, and Lipsienses I, of the twelfth century (Repertorium, p. 246); a previously unknown collection in Prague, University Library, MS XIV E. 31 (catal. 2565; fols. 35–43) can be added to this group, and the origin of this whole family can be proved to be French. Another family is formed by the Quaestiones Palatinae II, III, and VI (Repertorium, p. 247 f.), together with the Prague MS, fols. 43–45. Examples of the early thirteenth century are furnished by a family comprising the Quaestiones Borghesianae (op. cit., p. 429) and the Quaestiones Patavinae (op. cit., p. 255), and by the group described below, §24.Google Scholar

^{page 320 note 7} Kantorowicz, , art. cit., p. 32 ff. —Quaestiones redactae in Canon Law are, e.g., the Stuttgardienses (Repertorium, p. 245), the collection of Damasus (ibid., p. 426), and most of the collections of the later thirteenth century.Google Scholar

^{page 320 note 8} For Theology, cf. Landgraf, , art. cit., VII, 115.127; for Canon Law, the Quaestiones Palatinae II and VI (n. 6); see also below, nn. 21, 22.Google Scholar

^{page 320 note 9} The term is used by Johannes de Deo in the epilogue of his Liber Quaestionum (c. 1246), a book which he proudly recommends as containing not a single quaestio quaternalis: “ hoc est, a nullo fuerunt ante disputatae.” See the text in Schulte, , QL, II, 102, n. 26.Google Scholar

^{page 320 note 10} Cf. Kantorowicz, , art. cit., p. 17 ff.; Kuttner, , Repertorium, p. 243 f.; Studia et documenta hist. et iur., VI (1940), 429 f. Google Scholar

^{page 320 note 11} Cf. Cassiodorus, , Institutiones, II, 2, 9 (ed. Mynors, [Oxford, 1937], p. 103), or Cicero, , De inventione, I, 14, 19 (ed. Friedrich, , M. T Ciceronis Opp. rhetorica, I [Lipsiae, 1893], 130), for the rhetorical pattern consisting of exordium, narratio, partitio, confirmatio, reprobatio, conclusio .Google Scholar

^{page 320 note 12} Schulte's standard handbook yields hardly any information about this branch of medieval canonical literature. A first attempt of reviewing the Quaestiones of the early glossators was made in my Repertorium, pp. 243 ff., 423 ff., but is open to many corrections and additions.Google Scholar

^{page 320 note 13} Some parallelisms are hinted at in the preceding notes. Google Scholar

^{page 320 note 14} The Compilatio tertia (1210) is not used. Google Scholar

^{page 320 note 15} For the other contents of this miscellaneous MS, see Fischer, H., Canonistische Handschriften (Katalog der Handschriften der königlichen Bibliothek zu Bamberg, I, i, 5 [Bamberg, 1906]), p. 913 ff.; Kuttner, , Repertorium, pp. 387. 424 f. 426, and above, §10, n. 40. The Quaestiones begin: “Veniens quidam ad regimen ciuitatis” Google Scholar

^{page 320 note 16} The MS of Klosterneuburg is described by Pfeiffer, H. and Černik, B., Catalogus codicum mss. qui in bibliotheca Claustroneoburgensi asservantur, I (Wien, 1922), no. 656, and by Hugelmann, G., “In den ban mit rechte kommen”, ZRGKan, VII (1917), 83, n. 1. The contents are: (i) fols. 1–18r: a fragment of Damasus, Quaestiones; cf. Repertorium, p. 426; (ii) fols. 19–33v: the presently discussed collection of Quaestiones, beg. “Vocatus quidam ad regimen ciuitatis”, with the rubric, Incipiunt Bone Quaestiones, to which a later hand wrongly has added Bartholomei brixiensis dominicales et ueneriales; (iii) fol. 34r: an Arbor affinitatis with glosses, beg. “Affinitas est propinquitas proueniens in nobis”, by Johannes Teutonicus, as will be shown on another occasion; (iv) fol. 34v: an anonymous treatise on consanguinity, mostly faded and illegible; (v) fols. 35–42v: Johannes Teutonicus, Quaestiones disputatae (dominicales), cf. Repertorium, p. 254 and above, §14, n. 82. Contrary to Hugelmann's assertion, loc. cit., they clearly contain references to the Compilationes I–III; (vi) fols. 43–47v: Tancred, Ordo iudiciarius (Schulte, QL, I, 202), incomplete. Google Scholar

^{page 320 note 17} The MS of Vienna, insufficiently described in the catalogue, is rich in interesting and partly unknown writings. It contains (i) fols. 1–24r: an Abbreviatio Decretorum, beg. “Humanum genus”, identical with the fragmentary abbreviation in Avranches, Munic. Libr., MS 149 (fols. 136–138v); (ii) fol. 24r–24v: the decretal Pastoralis (Po. n. 2350) by Innocent III; (iii) fols. 25r–42v: Richardus Anglicus, Ordo iudiciarius; cf. Repertorium, p. 225; (iv) fol. 42r–42v: five minor items, (a) a Summula de dispensatione, beg. “Canones dispensabiles propositi sunt”; (b–e) four Quaestiones, beg. “Queritur utrum clericus possit compromittere”, of French origin, after 1210; (v) fols. 43r–51r: an incomplete commentary of glosses on Richard's Ordo (no. iii), beg. “Quoniam sententia contra solitum ordinem iudiciorum prolata uim rei iudicate non habet”, and on Richard's first words: Edi[c]tio, etc.] “Hec sunt uerba magistri qui dicit edictionem posse fieri”; the same commentary accompanies Richard's work in Douai, MS 644: cf. Witte, Magistri Ricardi Anglici Ordo iudiciarius (2d ed., Halle, 1853), p. 67; (vi) fol. 51v: a lecture (quaestio decretalis?) on 3 Comp. IV, 13, 2; beg. “De accusationibus quesitum est; primo queritur de illa decretali extra. iii. qui matrim. accus. possunt, Per tuas, in hunc modum”; (vii) fols. 52–74v: a Summa quaestionum, beg. “De constitutionibus. Videndum est quid sit constitutio et quot sint species”, written c. 1205–1210; (viii) fols. 75–100: the presently discussed collection of Quaestiones, beg. “Agitata est causa coram episcopo, appellatum est ab eo”; (ix) fol. 101: a fictitious story on King David, beg. “Hec est materia processus regis dauid” Google Scholar

^{page 320 note 18} The MS of Zwettl, practically unknown, is of an extraordinary value for the history of early canonical literature, particularly for Richardus Anglicus (cf. nos. vii. viii. x. xii). It contains (i) fols. 1–48v: a commentary on Comp. I, beg. “Materia auctoris in hoc opere”, based in part upon Richard's Apparatus; cf. above, §18, n. 22; (ii) fols. 48v–49v: Notabilia on the decretal collection of Gilbert, beg. “Non ualet rescriptum contra aliquos religiosos impetratum”; (iii) fols. 50–65v: a commentary on Gratian's Tractatus de poenitentia, beg. “Ego dico tibi, tu es Petrus”; (iv) fols. 66–70r: Bernard of Pavia, Summa de matrimonio; cf. above, §9, n. 25; (v) fols. 70–72v: Notabilia on Gratian, beg. “Gregorius: Qui multum emungit, sanguinem elicit”, not identical with a similar collection of Notabilia (cf. Repertorium, p. 235) in London, B. M., MS Addit. 18325; (vi) fol. 72v: short notes on Civil Law; (vii) fols. 73–82r: Richardus Anglicus, Generalia; cf. above §10, n. 40; (viii) fols. 83–94r: the same author's Ordo iudiciarius (cf. above, n. 17), with a paragraph on iuramentum calumniae and a few quaestiones on procedure appended; (ix) fols. 95–104v: Jacobus Columbi, Summa feudorum; cf. on this feudist treatise (which Palmieri, Bibliotheca iuridica medii aevi, II [Bononiae, 1892], 181 ff., edited wrongly under the name of Hugolinus): Seckel, E., “Ueber neuere Editionen juristischer Schriften aus dem Mittelalter”, ZRGRom, XXI (1900), 250 ff., and Genzmer, , art. cit. (above, §6, n. 48), p. 412; (x) fols. 105–122v: Richardus Anglicus, Distinctiones; cf. above, §4, n. 25; (xi and xiii): fols. 123–144v 173–178v: the presently discussed Quaestiones, beg. “Agitata est causa coram episcopo” and “Quedam rogauit quendam”; (xii) fols. 145–173: Richardus Anglicus, Summa quaestionum (cf. above, n. 4), beg. “Circa ius naturale uarie questiones solent fieri”, with the colophon, Explentur questiones ueneriales magistri Ricardi super tota decreta; (xiv) fols. 179–213: Honorius, Summa quaestionum (cf. above, n. 4), beg. “De questionibus decretalibus tractaturi”, with the rubric, Incipiunt questiones ueneriales secundum magistrum Honorium .Google Scholar

^{page 320 note 19} Cf. Repertorium, p. 425.Google Scholar

^{page 320 note 20} The collections of Bamberg (B) and Klosterneuburg (K) on one side, and of Vienna (W) and Zwettl (Z) on the other, seem to be more closely related. At least we find: B, qq. 1–4 = K, qq. 1–4, and Z, qq. 1–3 = W, qq. 1–3; while BK, qq. 1–4 return in W towards the end (fol. 94), and W, qq. 3–5 stand among the last ones in K. On the other hand, we have also K, q. 9 = W, q. 9, and B, q. 12 = W, q. 12.Google Scholar

^20a E.g., the case of a prince who goes on pilgrimage and for whom an impostor returns; the case of a woman who makes love, at the request of her husband, to the physician who otherwise would not cure him (can the husband divorce her?); the case of a youth who, disguised as a girl, makes profession as a nun and seduces the abbess (can the bishop compel him to be a monk?); the case of a prisoner who swears that he will return to the jail, if he were allowed to go to Mass on a certain feast day and who, once in the church, refuses to go back, claiming the right of asylum; and so on.Google Scholar

^{page 320 note 21} The themes of K, qq. 9.24.35, and many others are found again in the same MS (above n. 16, no. v) among Johannes' Quaestiones. Google Scholar

^{page 320 note 22} Quaestiones by Tancred, hitherto unknown, are reported among many anonymous ones in a large collection of Klosterneuburg, MS 1048, fols. 75–116v. The collection cites decretals from the fourth compilation (1216–1217); the case of wife, man, and doctor, and other themes are repeated.—For another collection, in Fulda, containing Quaestiones by Tancred, , see Repertorium, p. 430.Google Scholar

^22a The case of the prisoner (K, q. 24 = W, q. 39) is also discussed in Douai, Munic. Libr., MS 649 (formerly 582), fol. 145v, in a hitherto unknown collection of Quaestiones of French origin, early thirteenth century (fols. 143–148v, beg. “Papa scribit episcopo parisiensi”). As late as 1264, a Dominican theologian, the Blessed Peter of Tarentaise (Pope Innocent V), took up the problem, “utrum qui iurauit redire in carcerem teneatur redire”, in his Quodlibet, q. 1 (ed. Glorieux, P., Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale, IX [1937], 242). Compare also B, q. 10 of our group, “an sacerdos compelli possit ad purgationem qui uouit se numquam iuraturum” (Schulte, SBWien, LXVI [1870], 65), with Peter's q. 2: “utrum ille qui uouit nunquam iurare, debeat iurare uel possit de mandato superioris” It should be noted that among the thirty-seven questions of this Quodlibet, fourteen (qq. 1–4.6.11.15.24–26.28.30.34.35) are concerned with canonical problems.Google Scholar

^{page 320 note 23} In the common stock, if I am not mistaken, only two questions are reported with signatures: W 86v: “ Solutio: dicit Ro. ” (Robertus? Rodulphus? See below, n. 32); W 96b: “ Solutio secundum Bar. ” Google Scholar

^{page 320 note 24} A few only are anonymous, with dico in the solutions; one is given (W 89v) as lu. dicit, perhaps denoting L(a)u(rentius)? Google Scholar

^{page 320 note 25} I give this and the following examples from W alone, as I have not collated the texts of Z in detail. Google Scholar

^{page 320 note 26} Cf. above, §12. Google Scholar

^{page 320 note 27} If the case be based on real facts, this benefice would be the earliest available datum of Vincentius' ecclesiastical career in Portugal. The able canonist became dean of the chapter of Lisbon in 1212, administrator of that diocese in 1217, royal chancellor in 1224, bishop-elect of Idanha-Guarda in 1228, was unsuccessfully postulated by the chapter of Lisbon as bishop in 1234, confirmed c. 1235 for Idanha-Guarda, and died in 1248. Cf. de Almeida, F, História da Igreja em Portugal, I (Coimbra, 1910), 368.381.393.622 f.; Gillmann, , “Wo war Vincentius Hispanus Bischof?”, AKKR, CXIII (1933), 99 ff; Reuter, Königtum und Episkopat in Portugal (above, §5, n. 47), pp. 14. 20.24.28.32. A list of his canonical writings is given in Repertorium, p. 374, n. 2, with a correction in RHD, 4, XVI (1938), 209, n. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 320 note 28} I have in vain examined the Register of Innocent III, and Erdmann, C., Papsturkunden in Portugal (Abhandlungen der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, phil.-hist. Klasse, Neue Folge, XX, 3, Berlin, 1927).Google Scholar

^{page 320 note 29} The materials of the cause célèbre are preserved in the Epistolae Cantuarienses, ed. Stubbs, (London, 1865, Rolls Series), and in the chronicle by Gervase of Canterbury, ed. Stubbs, Gervasii monachi Cantuar. Opera, I (London, 1879, Rolls Series). Stubbs' introduction to the Epp. Cant. is still worth reading; among the more recent bibliography, I mention particularly Knowles, Dom D., The Monastic Order in England (Cambridge, 1940), pp. 319 ff., 325 ff. But the complex case awaits as yet a thorough analysis by a Canon Law historian.Google Scholar

^{page 320 note 30} Cf. Epp. Cant., pp. xlix, liv, 68. The text of his pleading is given by Gervase, Opp. I, 366 ff. See also Savigny, , IV, 325, notes e-g; Pollock and Maitland (§12, n. 54), I, 121. The remark on Pillius in the Glossa Ordinaria, C. 23, q. 2, c. 2, v. civitas] “ et per hoc decretum Pileus obtinuit contra nuntios regis anglie ”, does not refer, however, to this case (as Savigny, note f, assumed) but to the Canterbury election case of 1205 in which Pillius appeared for the monks, and Melendus (cf. above, §12, n. 55) for King John.Google Scholar

^{page 320 note 31} Particularly in W 97 ff., Z 143 f. Google Scholar

^{page 320 note 32} On these dates, see Savigny, , III, 307 ff. —If our supposition be true, Master Ro. who solves in W 86v (cf. above, n. 23; also in Z 173r) a case: “Rex anglie concessit quandam uillam cum iure suo cuidam monasterio ”, might be identified with magister Robertus de Anglia, who was one of the founders of the school of Vicenza (cf. Savigny, , III, 307, note a). But if the disputations were held in Bologna, he might rather be magister Rodulphus Anglicus, whose death is recorded on September 12, 1235 in the obituary of S. Maria di Reno, ed. Trombelli, (above, §4 n. 26), p. 347; Sarti, , II, 287 Google Scholar

^{page 320 note 33} Cf. above, §12, n. 57 Google Scholar

^{page 327 note 1} “Die Dekretalensammlung des Bernardus Compostellanus Antiquus”, SBWien, CLXXI, ii (1914).Google Scholar

^{page 327 note 2} The tenth year of Innocent III, i.e. the last one exploited by Bernard (cf. his Epilogue: Singer, Bern. Comp., p. 115), ended on February 21, 1208. Ourliac, P, “Bernard de Compostelle l'ancien”, Dictionnaire de Droit Canonique, II (1937), 775, asserts that the compilation was made shortly after 1208, and that one decretal of the eleventh year (Po. n. 3664 = Bern. I, 21, 10) was used. But he overlooks the fact that Singer, p. 24, proved Po. n. 3664 to belong to an earlier, uncertain year; see also Kuttner in RHD, 4, XVII (1938), 198, n. 5; Heckel, , Gilb. Alan., p. 160. —Also Ourliac's contention that Bernard included (II, 18, 1) a decretal of Celestine III (JL n. 17648) had been disproved beforehand by Singer, p. 23 f. Google Scholar

^{page 327 note 3} Cf. Singer, , Bern. Comp., pp. 3 ff. 29 ff.; Kuttner, , Repertorium, p. 319.Google Scholar

^{page 327 note 4} Heckel, , Gilb. Alan., pp. 170–172, correcting Singer who denied, Bern. Comp., p. 17, any influence of earlier collectors upon Bernard's choice of decretals.Google Scholar

^{page 327 note 5} Heckel, , loc. cit., counts 267 in the first, and 164 in the second group. But he overlooks the identity of six decretals in Alan (first redaction) and Bernard respectively; and four more decretals can be added from Alan's second redaction (cf. above, §6, n. 52; this redaction will be cited here in parentheses):Google Scholar

Bern. I, 26, un. = Alan.—(I, 24, 5).Google Scholar

Bern. II, 2, 6 = Alan. II, 1, 6 (II, 2, 6).Google Scholar

Bern. III, 20, 2 = Alan. III, 16, 5 (III, 16, 5).Google Scholar

Bern. III, 24, 3 = Alan. V, 3, 4 (V, 3, 4).Google Scholar

Bern. III, 37, 2 = Alan.—(VI, 3, 4).Google Scholar

Bern. IV, 12, 5 = Alan. IV, 12, 6 (IV, 12, 7).Google Scholar

Bern. V, 16, 1 = Alan. VI, 13 (VI, 6, 2).Google Scholar

Bern. V, 18, 1 = Alan.—(V, 18, 3).Google Scholar

Bern. V, 18, 2 = Alan. V, 17, 3 (V, 18, 4).Google Scholar

Bern. V, 22, 15 = Alan.—(V, 23, 11).Google Scholar

Incidentally, the parallelism of Bern. V, 18, 1.2 and Alan., 2d. ed. V, 18, 3.4, shows that the second redaction was really Bernard's source.Google Scholar

^{page 327 note 6} Cf. on this collection, Repertorium, p. 310. We can add a new MS, Paris, Bibl. Nat., lat. 3922 A (fols. 235–242).Google Scholar

^{page 327 note 7} Cf. Singer, , Bern. Comp., pp. 19. 37.38, who however admits no influence.Google Scholar

^{page 327 note 8} If we single out, in the group not derived from Gilbert and Alan, the decretals issued during the period from 1198 to June, 1201 (i.e. the period covered in Rainer's collection), we find but a very small number of texts common to Rainer and Bernard. In Bernard's first book, e.g.; they are five only: Google Scholar

Bern. I, 1, 1 = Rain. 1, un.Google Scholar

Bern. I, 2, 1 = Rain. 3, un.Google Scholar

Bern. I, 8, 2 = Rain. 4, 5.Google Scholar

Bern. I, 8, 4 = Rain. 4, 1.Google Scholar

Bern. I, 25, 3 = Rain. 2, 2;Google Scholar

while thirteen other decretals of this period are not in Rainer: Bern. I, 4, 8.11; I, 7, 3.4; I, 10, 3.5; I, 13, un. and I, 22, 1; I, 16, 1; I, 21, 2; I, 23, 1; I, 25, 2; I, 29, 1.5 (Po. nn. 1027 230.352.942.241.1173.1112.11.665.57.1002.1110.1013). The proportions are similar in the other books.Google Scholar

^{page 327 note 9} Cf. Repertorium, p. 317 Google Scholar

^{page 327 note 10} Cf. ibid., p. 318.Google Scholar

^{page 327 note 11} Cf. above, §17 (v) (vi). Google Scholar

^{page 327 note 12} On this Apparatus , see Repertorium, p. 358.Google Scholar

^{page 327 note 13} Cf. Singer, , Bern. Comp., p. 27 f. Google Scholar

^{page 327 note 14} Above, §17 (v). Google Scholar

^{page 327 note 15} Singer, , Bern. Comp., p. 12.Google Scholar

^{page 327 note 16} d'Arbois de Jubainville, H., Etudes sur l'état intérieur des abbayes cisterciennes (Paris, 1858), p. 437 f., established the identity of MS R. 88, correctly described in the old catalogue of Clairvaux, with the MS of the Bibliothèque Impériale, fonds Bouhier, 137 (now MS lat. 18223).Google Scholar

^{page 327 note 17} Theiner, , Disquisitiones criticae in antiquas iuris canonici collectiones (Romae, 1836), p. 129 ff. Google Scholar

^{page 327 note 18} Op. cit. , p. 131.Google Scholar

^{page 327 note 19} Schulte, , “Die Compilationen Gilberts und Alanus”, SBWien, LXV (1870), 610 f. Google Scholar

^{page 327 note 20} Cf. Singer, , Bern. Comp., p. 8 f. —Ourliac, art. cit. (above, n. 2), suggests, without sufficient reason, that the references were made to a mixed collection containing elements from both Gilbert and Alan.Google Scholar

^{page 327 note 21} Cf. Repertorium, p. 312 f. Google Scholar

^{page 327 note 22} Theiner, , op. cit. , p. 131, n. 5.Google Scholar

^{page 327 note 23} On Theiner's mistakes and carelessness in general, see Singer, , Bern. Comp., p. 9, n. 31.Google Scholar

^{page 327 note 24} Gilb. I, 10, 3 is the decretal Litteras, JL n. 16633, by Clement III (2 Comp. I, 9, 5 = X. I, 17, 14), which of course does not correspond to any text in Bernard. The scribe of R wrote the correct address and initium of Bern. I, 10, 6: Idem (Innocentius III) Mutinensi. Litteras uestre, but then confused the reference which should have been to Innocent III's decretal Litteras, Po. n. 1327, Gilb. I, 8, 3. Evidently his eye was caught by the identical initium of a decretal two titles below.Google Scholar

^{page 327 note 25} Cf. Repertorium, p. 313.Google Scholar

^{page 327 note 26} Gilb. HL, I, 21, 1 = Gilb. app. 5; Gilb. HL, I, 21, 2 = Alan. app. 17 (I, 24, 4).Google Scholar

^{page 327 note 27} Also Alanus, in the glosses on his own compilation (MS of Vercelli, cf. above, §6, n. 52), calls Gilbert's collection liber secundus .Google Scholar

^{page 327 note 28} Theiner, , Disquis. crit., p. 126, n. 14. According to him, this calendar stands “tabulae rubricarum epitomes Bernardi Papiensis calci adiecta”; this may be either in MS Ye. 80 or in MS Ye. 52 of the University Library, both of which contain the Comp. I, cf. Repertorium, p. 331 f. Google Scholar

^{page 327 note 29} Theiner, , op. cit. , p. 126.Google Scholar

^{page 327 note 30} Schulte, (above, n. 19), p. 596 f.; Singer, , Bern. Comp., p. 20, n. 56.Google Scholar

^{page 327 note 31} This can be done by collating his careless description of the Compostellan's rubrics, p. 134, n. 13 (his numbers are given in our table as B. Th.), with Singer's analysis.Google Scholar

^{page 327 note 32} The original title in Bernard differs: De irregulari translatione electi confirmati et episcoporum. The wording in Theiner's list may be due to his own or to the scribe's inadvertence. Google Scholar

^{page 327 note 33} See also Heckel, , Gilb. Alan., p. 172 f. Google Scholar

^{page 327 note 34} Singer, , Bern. Comp., p. 27.Google Scholar

^{page 327 note 35} In regard to a few pieces from earlier years, see Heckel, , Gilb. Alan., p. 173.Google Scholar

^{page 327 note 36} Tancred, in the preface of his Apparatus on Comp. III, says: “ quas Romana curia refutabat” Cf. on the meaning of this passage, Singer, , Bern. Comp., p. 29 ff. For editions of Tancred's preface, see Repertorium, p. 309, n. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 327 note 37} Singer, , Bern. Comp., p. 25. Add to his list, n. 73, of sixteen pieces in Comp. IV: Bern. II, 2, 6 = 4 Comp. II, 2, 4 (above, §28).Google Scholar

^{page 327 note 38} Tancred, , loc. cit .Google Scholar

^{page 327 note 39} Glosses of Comp. I in M, set iv: see above, §18, n. 26.Google Scholar

^{page 327 note 40} Paris, Arsenal, MS 769 (fols. 74v–84v); cf. Repertorium, p. 435.Google Scholar

^{page 327 note 41} Salzburg, , St. Peter's Abbey, MS a. IX. 18 (fols. 244–275v). The MS, hitherto unknown, contains (i) fols. 2–117: Compilatio prima, with the Apparatus of Richard (cf. above, §18, n. 20), the Apparatus of Alan (on this work, cf. Repertorium, p. 325 and above, §6, n. 52), and several additions; (ii) fols. 118–168: Gilbert's collection of decretals, second redaction, with Gilbert's glosses; cf. above, §17, n. 9; (iii) fols. 169–243: Alan's collection, second redaction, without glosses; cf. above, §6, n. 52; (iv) fols. 244–275v: the collection presently discussed.Google Scholar

^{page 327 note 42} When we examine Bern. I, tit. 1–5 (whence Coll. Salisb., c. 1–6 are excerpted), we find that I, 3, 1–3; I, 4, 3–4.6.9.10.12–14; I, 5, 1–4 are covered by the collection of Alan. But beyond these 15 decretals, Coll. Salisb. omits five more, viz. Bern. I, 1, 1–2; I, 2, un.; I, 4, 2.7 Google Scholar

^{page 327 note 43} In our examples, the omission of Bern. I, 1, 1–2 and I, 2, un. may be due to the theological nature of these pieces, but for I, 4, 2.7 that reason does not hold good. Google Scholar

^{page 327 note 44} Cf. Kuttner, , “La réserve papale du droit de canonisation”, RHD, 4, XVII (1938), p. 207, n. 1; p. 227.—On Ambrosius and his Summa see Repertorium, p. 392 f.; add the MS of Venice, Marcian Libr., lat. IV 25 (Valentinelli VIII. 22; fols. 23–71v) concerning which several wrong guesses were made formerly by others and by myself (cf. Repertorium, pp. 341. 389, n. 6).Google Scholar

^{page 327 note 45} In Damasus, Quaest., tit. de officio iudicis ordin., there is a passage: “ et erat bonum argumentum in bernardo, Licet.” This reference was misunderstood by Schulte, , “Literaturgeschichte der Compilationes Antiquae”, SBWien, LXVI (1870), 152; actually, it means Bern. II, 2, 6 (= 4 Comp. II, 2, 4).—On the Quaestiones by Damasus, see Repertorium, p. 426 ff.; add the MS of Plock, Diocesan Seminary, 78 (fols. 77–103), according to Vetulani, Projet, p. 451.Google Scholar

^{page 327 note 46} Gillmann, , “Der Kommentar des Vincentius Hispanus zu den Kanones des vierten Laterankonzils”, AKKR, CIX (1929), 263, n. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 327 note 47} Albertus, in a gloss on Comp. II, incorporated by Tancred, De iudeis, c. Significavit (2 Comp. V, 4, 5 = X. V, 6, 11), v. per alios] “ ex. b' de emunit. eccles. Expectauimus, lib. iii. quotiens. a.” This refers to Bern. III, 38, 2.—On Albert's Apparatus, cf. Repertorium, p. 345; Gillmann, , Zur Inventaris., p. 87; additional copies are in Melk, Bened. Monast., MS 518 (formerly I. 37; fols. 1v–34v, set i) and Zwettl, Cisterc. Monast., MS 30 (fols. 65–101). For Tancred on Comp. II, see Repertorium, p. 346, and above, §17, n. 15.Google Scholar

^{page 327 note 48} The Glossa Palatina refers twice (on D. 89, c. Volumus [2], v. eligant, and on C. 9, q. 3, c. Cum simus [3] v. licentia) to “ ex. in(nocentii). de concess. preb. Licet.” (P, fols. 21va. 44ra). This decretal appears in Alan. app. 55 (2d ed. I, 9, 3), and later in 4 Comp. I, 6, 1 (X. I, 10, 3), always under the rubric De supplenda negligentia prelatorum; only Bern. III, 10, 2 contains it under the quoted title, De concessione prebende (uel dignitatis non uacantis).Google Scholar

^{page 327 note 49} Singer, , Bern. Comp., p. 28, with some examples in n. 79.Google Scholar

^{page 327 note 50} For instance, Bernard rejected as spurious in his epilogue, among other decretals, the letter Miramur non modicum (Alan. I, 10, un; 2d ed. I, 14, un.; cf. Singer, p. 114 f.). St. Raymond nevertheless included it in X. I, 18, 7 Cf. Singer, , p. 35; Heckel, , Gilb. Alan., p. 175.Google Scholar

^{page 327 note 51} Further research may bring out other writings by the Compostellan. An addition, e.g., with the siglum B'., to the Apparatus by Vincentius on the Statutes of the Fourth Lateran Council (Bamberg, MS Can. 20; cf. Repertorium, p. 369) might be his—but it might as well belong to his younger contemporary, master Bertrandus (Repertorium, l.c. and p. 100).Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 1} A first but insufficient account of the MS (= Ov) was given in Repertorium, p. 53 f. Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 2} Cf. op. cit. , p. 99.Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 3} Cf. op. cit. , p. 102.Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 4} Cf. op. cit. , p. 54.Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 5} The terminus a quo results from a gloss of set v, on C. 2, q. 1, c. In primis (7), v. accusatores] “Nota istam caudam et hoc fuit de facto tempore potestatis bon(oniensis), scil. d(omini) Jo. de lu.” (Ov, fol. 84ra). Giovanni da Lucino was podestà in 1294; cf. Corpus Chronicorum Bononiensium , ed. Muratori, , Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, XVIII (Mediolani, 1731), 298; and ed. Sorbelli, , Rer Ital. Script., Nuova edizione, XVIII, i, 2 (Bologna, 1938), 238.Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 6} On Stephanus Provincialis, see Schulte, , QL, II, 164; Fournier, P, “Notes complémentaires pour l'histoire des canonistes du XIV^e siècle”, Nouv. RHD, XLIII (1919), 637 His siglum in Ov is a semi-uncial s., or ste. The same siglum appears in a stratum of additions on the Glossa Ordinaria (2d redaction) in Padua, Cathedral Chapter, MS A. 23.Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 7} Ov 17va. 18rb. 89rb. The siglum is R. de Senis .Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 8} Cf. the Pope's decree of promulgation, Sacrosanctae, in the editions of the Corpus iuris canonici.— Schulte, , QL, II, 35.Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 9} Meijers, E. M., Iuris interpretes saec. XIII (Neapoli, 1924), p. 217 ff. Concerning Richard's alleged professorate in Siena, cf. Denifle, H., Die Universitäten des Mittelalters, I (Berlin, 1885), 436. Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 10} Finke, H., Aus den Tagen Bonifaz' VIII. (Vorreformationsgeschichtliche Forschungen, II, Münster, 1902), p. 106, n. 1, reproduces the inscription of the copy he discovered in Munich, State Libr., MS lat. 329 (fol. 165v): Incipiunt casus sexti decretalium per dominum Ricardum de Cenis cardinalem.—Richard was Cardinal from 1298 to his death, 1314; cf. Eubel, I, 13. A copy of his will, dated January 27, 1314, was discovered by Mme J. Bignami-Odier in the Vatican Library, MS Reg. lat. 377 (fols. 47–51).Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 11} These were overlooked in Repertorium, p. 53.Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 12} Cf. op. cit. , p. 84.Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 13} Cf. op. cit. , p. 92; more glossae extravagantes are on fols. 123va. 219rb. 300rb. 301ra. 303rb. 306ra.Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 14} Cf. above, §14. Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 15} Ov 2vb. 3ra. 4ra. 172ra. 229ra. 258va. 261v. 264r. 278rb. 282ra. On Huguccio's original siglum, vγ., and the various abbreviations used for his name by others, see above, §4, n. 36.Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 16} Ov 112ra. 123ra. 162vb. 169ra. For his Apparatus on Gratian, see above, §6A.Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 17} Ov 56r. 270va, unsigned. On the Distinctiones, see above, §4, at n. 25.Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 18} Ov 84ra. 85ra. 106ra. 173ra. On Damasus' decretalist writings, see Repertorium, pp. 328. 346. 370. 378. 393 ff. 419 ff. 426 ff. 428, n. 3; RHD, 4, XVII (1938), 209, n. 2; for the Quaestiones, also above, §23, n. 7; §29, n. 45.Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 19} Ov 109 va. 254 rb. The first of these glosses is signed: Ja. la., indicating the appropriation of a Jacobean gloss by Laurentius; cf. above, §6, n. 69. There exist also, vice versa, additions of Jacobus to Laurentius; cf. above §6 B.Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 20} Repertorium, p. 383. He wrote also additions to Tancred's Apparatus on Comp. I: Admont, Bened. Monast., MS 22 (fols. 1–85v, in set ii).Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 21} Bernard of Montmirat (Abbas Antiquus) says in his Lectura on the Decretals, De electionibus, c. Dudum (X. I, 6, 54): “ sicut fecit magister Jacobus de Alben. qui dimisit quendam archidiaconatum quem habebat cum ecclesiis, tempore quo uacauit Alban. ecclesia, licet postea electus non fuerit” (ed. Venet., 1588, fol. 24, num. 8). On Bernard of Montmirat (d. 1296), see Meijers, E. M., Responsa Doctorum Tholosanorum (Haarlem, 1938), p. viii f.; Kuttner, , “Wer war der Dekretalist Abbas Antiquus?”, ZRGKan, XXVI (1937), 471–489; Studia et documenta historiae et iuris, VI (1940), 426, n. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 22} Thus by Willielmus Durantis (d. 1296), Speculum iudiciorum, prologue: “ Jac. de Albenga episcopus Faventinus” Sarti I, 407, and F Lanzoni, Cronotassi dei Vescovi di Faenza (Faenza, 1913), p. 133, therefore insert the name in the list of bishops of that see, between Bishop Albert (d. 1239 or 1241) and the Bishop-elect Julian (1242). But this insertion is not warranted by any document. Schulte, QL, I, 206, identifies the glossator with Bishop Jacobus Petrella (1258–1273), regardless of the difference of names and of the chronological discrepancy A mistake by Durantis seems more likely.Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 23} Ov 213vb. 254v. 259r. 261va. 267ra; and M. on fol. 82va. Notes by M. (not Melendus) are found also in the additions to Laurentius of the MS Lc (cf. above, §6, n. 60). In Ov 247va, two distichs are marked MaR., but this refers to Martialis, , Epigrammata, XI, 104, 21–22; XI, 16, 9–10 (ed. Lindsay, [Oxford, 1902], pp. 281. 259).—The surname Zamorensis was found by Gillmann, Laur Hisp., p. 20; Zur Inventaris., p. 80 ff. This glossator is not to be confused with Master Martin of Florence (cf. Sarti, I, 397).Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 24} Cf. Gillmann, , AKKR, CVIII (1928), 527; Zur Inventaris., pp. 75 (note). 80 ff.; “Petrus Brito und Martinus Zamorensis ”, AKKR, CXX (1940), 63 f.—Martin also wrote glosses on Comp. IV, beg. “Nam dubius in fide hereticus est”: Olmütz, Metrop. Chapter, MS 589 (set iii; leaves unnumbered, behind Compp. I–III); in the same MS, set ii, the Notabilia “Nota argumentum quod aliter possumus confiteri” on Comp. IV (cf. Repertorium, p. 414) are likewise signed by M., mar .Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 25} On Martinus Roderici, see Eubel, I, 538.299; II (1914), xxxxiv.Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 26} Ov 108rb.Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 27} Cf. above, §18, at n. 25; §20. Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 28} Ov 87vb. 91rb. 101vb. 105ra. 105vb. 106rb (above, §6, n. 67). 123va. 154ra (interlinear). 156va. 164va. 168va.Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 29} Cf. above, §25, n. 27 Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 30} Azo: Ov 100vb. 123vb. Hugolinus: Ov 92rb. 158r. Lanfrancus: Ov 123 va. Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 31} To Lanfrancus, scholars have frequently attributed decretalist glosses (e.g., Schulte, , QL, I, 198; Van Hove, , Prolegomena, p. 232), which actually are by Laurentius Hispanus. The confusion, caused by the similitude of the sigla, lan. and lau., was definitely clarified by Gillmann, , “Lanfrankus oder Laurentius?”, AKKR, CIX (1929), 598–641; CX (1930), 157 ff.—Azo is positively credited in the MS of Modena (above, §20, at n. 42) with having commented on a decretal of the Compilatio prima; but this does not prove that the celebrated civilian lectured ex professo on the decretals, to say nothing of teaching on Gratian.Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 32} (i) The first gloss with Azo's siglum is given on C. 3, q. 6, pr. (Ov 100vb), i.e. on a text corresponding to Cod. 3, 15. The gloss begins: “Reus autem illius prouincie ” and continues with an exposition “Item nota quod de criminibus agitur tribus locis transmittatur ad locum ubi deliquit: in aut. ut nulli iudic. §Si uero cog. (Auth. 9, 9, 5 = Nov. 134, 5) az.” This is taken verbatim from Azo's Summa Codicis, 3, 15 (ed. Venet., 1581, fol. 183).—(ii) Two other glosses with the siglum az. are found (Ov 123vb) on C. 10, q. 2, c. Hoc ius, §Perpetua quoque and §Si quas uero ruinas (c. 2, §§6.8) where Gratian had incorporated a group of authenticae from Cod. 1, 2, 14 (cf. Vetulani, A., “Les Novelles de Justinien dans le Décret de Gratien”, RHD, 4, XVI [1937], 675.679). The glosses correspond exactly to Azo's Lectura Codicis, 1, 2, 14 (ed. Paris., 1577, p. 14, num. 55; p. 13, num. 53).—(iii) The gloss by Lanfrancus is found on the same lex canonizata, C. 10, q. 2, c. 1, §1 (Ov 123va), and runs: “Ex argumento huius legis . unde huic littere sto tanquam iudeus. lāMfñ.” Here, too, origin from a Roman Law Lecture is evident.—(iv) The first gloss by Hugolinus is reported (Ov 92rb) on C. 2, q. 6, §Si quis in quacumque (p.c. 39 = Cod. 7, 70, un.); cf. below, at n. 59.—(v) A distinction, “Munerum alia sordida ”, with the signature Hugol., and four short glosses (signed huγ., h., hu.) are given in Ov 158r, on C. 16, q. 1, §Placet (p. c. 40, §4) where Gratian repeats the text of Cod. 1, 2, 5.—“Munerum alia sordida” is the opening piece of Hugolinus' famous Collectio distinctionum, and was written to illustrate this very lex; cf. Savigny, V, 63 ff. 629; Seckel, E., “Distinctiones glossatorum”, Festschrift der Berliner Juristischen Fakultät für F von Martitz (Berlin, 1911), p. 420f. Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 33} Sometimes they consist only of additional references to the Compilatio quarta. An example in RHD, 4, XVII (1938), 221.Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 34} Cf. above, §14, at n. 80 ff. Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 35} Contrary to the supposition expressed in Repertorium , p. 54.Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 36} All the works of William Naso are concerned with the Decretals of Gregory IX, of 1234. Cf. the writings listed in Schulte, , QL, II, 78 f., and in Trifone, R., “Gli scritti di Guglielmo Nasone ”, Rivista di storia del diritto italiano, II (1929), 242 ff.—Sarti, I, 421, n. 4, and Schulte, loc. cit., following an unsupported assertion by Thomas Diplovatatius (d. 1541), date Naso's activity from about 1227 onwards, and Trifone, art. cit., p. 243 even asserts that this master was mentioned by a Bolognese judicial document as early as 1222. But the Guillielmus doctor decretorum of that document (July 24, 1222: Sarti, II, 169 = Chartularium Studii Bonon., III [1916], 193) was another William, surnamed Normannus, as can be seen from a second document in the same case (March 31, 1223: Sarti, I, 626 = Chartul., III, 197). Naso's writings will be discussed on another occasion; for Trifone's misinterpretation of the siglum N., see above, §4, n. 36.Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 37} March 14, 1219: Sarti, I, 402; Repertorium, p. 453. —July 24, 1222: in the same document as master William of Normandy.Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 38} Gloria, , p. 541 f.Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 39} Wahrmund, L., Quellen zur Geschichte des römisch-kanonischen Prozesses im Mittelalter, II, i (Innsbruck, 1913), xii. His argument was founded on the premises that (1) the author of this treatise, magister G., resolves in the prologue to follow the vestiges of a magister Petrus Penerclii (or Penerco, Penerell, Peneressi, Prevelli—the name is corrupted in all the MSS); and that (2) a formulary in the Summa dictaminis of Guido Faba (1229) reproduces a letter of invitation, sent from Padua by G. Guascus to his friend Petrus Hispanus (cf. also Sarti, , I, 364. 401; Schulte, , QL, I, 152; Gloria, , loc. cit.). According to Wahrmund, the couples, G.—Petrus Penerclii, G. Guascus—Petrus Hispanus, might be identical. The syllogism, weak in itself, is voided in its first member by the disclosure of the true author and origin of the treatise Scientiam (cf. the text, above). But also the second premise is invalid, since other MSS of the Summa dictaminis give the invitation as written by one E., or R., Castellanus; cf. Denifle, Universitäten des Mittelalters (above, n. 9), p. 278, n. 227 There exists no critical edition of Guido Faba's Summa (the text printed by A. Gaudenzi in Il Propugnatore, Nuova Serie, V, ii [1892], is of no value); at any rate, this form letter in a text book of dictamen should not be used as a historical document, either for William Vasco, or for the younger Petrus Hispanus, even though both of them taught at Padua in 1229. For Petrus Hispanus (Portugalensis), see above, §20, n. 51.Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 40} On the MS of London, see Repertorium, p. 33, n. 1; for Montecassino, MS 136 (p. 241), cf. Inguanez, Dom M., Codicum Casinensium Manuscriptorum Catalogus, I (1915), 219.Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 41} Bry, J., review of Wahrmund's edition, Nouv. RHD, XXXVII (1913), 700 ff. Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 42} Glosses on Comp. I: Admont, Bened. Monast., MS 22 (fols. 1–85v, in set ii); Graz, Univ. Libr., MS 106 (formerly 41/9; fols. 1–80v, in set ii); Paris, Bibl. Nat., MS lat. 3932 (fols. 1–69v, in set ii; cf. Repertorium, p. 337).—Glosses on Comp. IV: Admont, MS cit. (fols. 246v–270, in set ii).—Reference to Vasco's decretalist glosses is probably made when the anonymous glossator of Comp. I in the MS of Modena, set iv (cf. above, §18, at n. 26) cites: “Dicebat W quoniam non solum ” (M 54v), and when Gilbert in the glosses on his own collection (cf. Repertorium, p. 313; above, §17, n. 9) speaks several times of magister Wil. or Gwil. (cf. Repertorium, p. 327, n. 2).Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 43} The famous statute—which decreed, among other provisions, the much discussed prohibition of Civil Law studies for the clergy, and the dissolution of the Civil Law school of Paris—was frequently copied separately in canonical MSS. In Florence, Laurentian Libr., MS S. Croce V sin. 4 (fly-leaf), and in Lisbon, National Libr., MS Alcob. 381 (formerly 305; fol. 224), it is divided into three chapters (corresponding to 5 Comp. V, 12, 3; III, 27, un.; V, 2, un. = X. V, 38, 28; III, 50, 10; V, 5, 5) and furnished with an apparatus, beg. “Nota in causis ecclesiasticis debere principaliter canones allegari” The glosses are unsigned in Lisbon, but in Florence many of them bear the sigla G., Guill'.; or Jo. (Teutonicus). In Lisbon, two other decretals of Honorius III (5 Comp. II, 12, 1; I, 5, 6 = X. II, 20, 48; I, 6, 48) are appended, without glosses.Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 44} In Florence, MS cit., on the verso of the fly-leaf, there is an Arbor consanguinitatis with glosses by one Master R. to which another hand adds towards the end: “Magister Guill' Wasco dicit, et credo bene dicat. ” Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 45} In the MS of Graz (above, n. 42), the opening gloss, v. Iuste iudicate. etc.] “Sic pone casum: diuiditur in quinque partes ”, is signed in full, Wil' Wasco. See also the preceding note. Elsewhere, W., or G., or Guill. is the usual siglum. Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 46} This siglum is found on 37 pages in Ov, and often repeatedly on the same page. Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 47} See the glosses below, at nn. 56.57; also on C. 16, q. 1, §Hoc idem (p.c. 40) v. imperfecti sumus] “Vasco dicit aliam litteram esse in apostolo ” (Ov 158 va). Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 48} Cf. Repertorium, p. 31; above, §7 Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 49} Cf. op. cit., p. 32 f.—I am doubtful about the siglum W in New York, Morgan Libr., MS M. 446 (set iii). The MS represents in this stratum the standard tradition of Huguccio's time, c. 1180–1190 (cf. above, §4, n. 33), and strong chronological reasons prevail against William's having contributed to it. In fact, the siglum W. has here in general been substituted for other erased sigla (e.g., on fols. 39. 89 ff.).Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 50} Cf. above, §6 B. Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 51} Ov 89rb.Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 52} Ov 108va; for an addition of Bernard to the same gloss of the Ordinaria, see above, §14, at n. 80.Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 53} Ov 110vb.Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 54} Other examples of this kind are found in Ov 88ra. 91va. 154vb. 155ra. 158rb. 159va. 160rb. 167vb. 172va. 174vb. Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 55} P 32ra, R 95v, Ov 90r.Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 56} P 53ra, R 150ra, Ov 146va.Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 57} P 56va, R 157rb, Ov 154rb. An interlinear gloss on the same text (Ov 154ra) runs thus: suis] “i.e. sibi commissis; hoc enim intelligo de rebus ecclesie. v.” Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 58} P 60vb, R 169vb, Ov 166vb. The texts are too extensive to be reproduced here.Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 59} Ov 92rb. The gloss is followed by another: “Si suplicabis a sententia prefecti pretorio … la(urentius).” Google Scholar