¹ The author wishes to thank Professor Stephan Kuttner for a critical reading of the paper, and Mr. John H. Erickson, Yale University, for bibliographical assistance in its preparation. In addition to the abbreviations used regularly in Traditio and this Bulletin, the following will be employed: Cat. gin. in 4° = Catalogue général des manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques des départements, in quarto; Cat. gin. in 8° = Catalogue … bibliothèques publiques de France, in octavo; Fournier, , Yves de Chartres — Fournier, P., Les collections canoniques attribuées à Yves des Chartres (extrait de la Bibliothèque de l'École des Chartes 57–8[1896–7]; Paris 1897); Gossman, , Pope Urban = Gossman, F. J., Pope Urban II and Canon Law (The Catholic University of America Canon Law Studies 403; Washington 1960); Sdralek, , Wolf. Frag. = Sdralek, M., Wolfenbüttler Fragmente (Kirchenge-schichtliche Studien herausgegeben von Dr. Knöpfler, Dr. Schrörs, Dr. Sdralek 1.2; Münster i. W. 1891); Stickler, , Historia = Stickler, A. M., Historia iuris canonici latini 1 (Turin 1950).Google Scholar

² Schieffer, T., Die päpstlichen Legaten in Frankreich (Historische Studien … 263; Berlin 1935) 198–203, provides the most recent treatment of this journey. For Cono see also Klewitz, H. W., ‘Die Entstehung des Kardinalkollegiums,’ ZRG Kan. Abt. 25 (1936) 211, No. 10.Google Scholar

³ Schieffer, , loc. cit. ; Becker, A., Studien zum Investiturproblem in Frankreich (Saarbrücken 1955) 130–1.Google Scholar

⁴ Hefele, C. J. and Leclercq, J., Histoire des conciles 5.1 (Paris 1912) 548, observe that this synod met under the auspices of ‘Bruno, légat du pape et cardinal-évêque de Préneste For metropolitan attendance at Beauvais see Mansi 21.124 (this is the authentic item from the council in the Avranches list — cf. below p. 496, and the texts at the end of the paper). For Ivo and Beauvais see his letter No. 253 (PL 162.258–9), and Sprandel, R., Ivo von Chartres und seine Stellung in der Kirchengeschichte (Pariser historische Studien 1; Stuttgart 1962) 179 No. 26, and 194. — Cono held four councils during his sojourn in France: Beauvais (November 1114), Soissons (January 1115), Reims (March 1115), and Châlons-sur-Marne (July 1115). For a description of these synods see the texts and notes of Schieffer, loc. cit. and Hefele-Leclercq, , loc. cit. 548–50. In the spring of 1115 the legate was, for a short time, in Cologne, where he also held a council (April 1115): Hefele-Leclercq, , ibid. 549.Google Scholar

⁵ Hefele-Leclercq, , ibid. 548; Schieffer, , op. cit. 199–200. See also the description by A. De Meyer and É. Van Cauwenbergh in DHGE 7.261–2 (Hefele-Leclercq's error in the legate's name is repeated there).Google Scholar

⁶ See the text discovered by Gabriel Cossart from a MS of the Chartreuse de Mont-Dieu (Ardennes) [cf. Cottineau, L., Répertoire topo-bibliographique des abbayes et prieurés 2 (Mâcon 1937) 1894]: Labbe, P. and Cossart, G., Sacrosancta concilia 10 (Paris 1671) 797 (also in Mansi 21.122–3); and see, in addition, the letter in the Codex Udalrici from Frederick I, Archbishop of Cologne, to Bishop Otto I of Bamberg: Jaffé, P., Monumenta Bambergensia (Bibliotheca rerum Germanicarum 5; Berlin 1869) 295–6 (also in Mansi 21.127–8). — Cossart, , loc. cit. (Mansi 21.123) notes that Juret, F., in his edition of Ivo of Chartres' letters, had cited at letter No. 236 an excerpt regarding the excommunication of Henry similar to that which Cossart himself had edited. The reference can be confusing. The pertinent passage is found in Juret's Ivonis episcopi… epistolae (Paris 1585) 255, in the notes to letter 238. The comments of Juret were reprinted by J. Fronteau in his edition, Ivonis … opera omnia 2 (Paris 1647), where this letter is numbered 236, with Juret's note at p. 196. The remark is omitted in PL 162 in the notes to letter 236, where it should occur among Juret's comments.Google Scholar

⁷ See the discussion by Kempf, F. in Die mittelalterliche Kirche 1 (Handbuch der Kirchengeschichte, ed Jedin, H., 3.1; Freiburg 1966) 454–5, and the fuller treatment by Fliche, A., La réforme grégorienne et la reconquête chrétienne [1057–1123] (Histoire de l'église … 8; St.-Dizier 1950) 359–71.Google Scholar

⁸ Mansi 21.73–6. Cf. Kempf, . loc. cit. 455, and Fliche, , loc. cit. 370–1.Google Scholar

⁹ JL 6330 to Archbishop Guy, written on October 20, 1112: ‘Unde Deo gratias referimus, et quae statuta sunt ibi rata suscipimus et confirmamus, et cooperante Domino Deo illibata permanere censemus.’ Google Scholar

¹⁰ For Cono's councils in these cities see above n. 4. The information that the excommunication was promulgated in those synods is given by the text of Cossart and Juret, mentioned in n. 6. Kempf (see n. 7) does not specify the excommunication pronounced by Cono, although he does discuss generally (455) the legatine sentences against the German emperor. Fliche (see also n. 7) indicates Cono's excommunication of Henry (374), but not the individual councils. — According to the Ekkehardi Chronicon, a. 1116 (MGH Scriptores 6, ed. Waitz, G. [Hannover 1844] 251), in 1116, at the fourth Lateran council of his pontificate, Pope Paschal remarked to Cono: ‘Vere legatus ex latere nostro missus fuisti; et quicquid tu ceterique fratres nostri cardinales episcopi, legati Dei et apostolorum Petri et Pauli, huius sedis et nostra auctoritate fecerunt, probaverunt, confirmaverunt, ego quoque probo et confirmo; quicquid autem dampnaverunt, dampno.’ Google Scholar

¹¹ Spicilegium sive collectio veterum aliquot scriptorum 2 (Paris 1657) 594ff. In the 1723 edition of the Spicilegium the texts are found at 1.633–5.Google Scholar

¹² Sacrosancta concilia (see n. 6 above) 10.798–801. As in the Spicilegium, the decrees here are not numbered.Google Scholar

¹³ Mansi 21.124–6; Coleti, N., Sacrosancta concilia 12 (Venice 1730) 1209ff. Hardouin, J., Conciliorum collectio 6.2 (Paris 1714) 1926ff., also prints these texts.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Sdralek, , Wolf. Frag. Sdralek's research has been incorporated into Fournier-LeBras, Histoire 2.285–96. The material also has been investigated more recently by De Smet, J. M. of Louvain; but his work is known only through a footnote in van Hove, Prolegomena 334 n. 1. See also. Stickler, , Historia 185; and for the first section of the MS — the French Collection in Nine Books — see Gossman, , Pope Urban 68–77.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Sdralek, , op. cit 3–6. MS Gud. 212 is called thirteenth century by Brackman, A., ‘Papsturkunden des Nordens, Nord- und Mittel-Deutschlands,’ Nachr. Ges. Göttingen (1904) 113; Ramackers, J., Papsturkunden in Frankreich (Neue Folge) 3: Artois (Abh. Ges. Göttingen, Dritte Folge 25; Berlin 1940) 8; and by Wasserschleben, H., ‘Zur Geschichte der Gottesfrieden,’ ZRG Germ. Abt. 12 (1891) 112. The MS had been at St.-Germain in Paris in the sixteenth century. It came to Wolfenbüttel in 1710 through a purchase from the Danish diplomat and scholar, Marquard Gude. Because of its pre-Wolfenbüttel location, the codex usually is called the Collection of St.-Germain (cf. Bras, Fournier-Le, loc. cit 285), although Gossman, loc. cit. 68, uses that name for a single section of the MS.Google Scholar

¹⁶ For Rome see Mansi 20.961–4; for Poitiers, , ibid. 1122–4. The latter decrees have been reedited by Sdralek, , op. cit. 136–8.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Bras, Fournier-Le, Histoire 2.291, remark concerning this section that Sdralek ‘n'a pas vu que cette collection était tout simplement un extrait du Décret de Burchard de Worms.’ Google Scholar

¹⁸ These items all are described in detail by Sdralek, , Wolf. Frag. Google Scholar

¹⁹ Van Hove, , Prolegomena 334 n. 1, relates that this had been demonstrated by De Smet (see n. 14) ‘solidis argumentis.’ Sdralek, , op. cit. (see especially 79), and Bras, Fournier-Le, Histoire 2.293–5, also discuss attribution of the entire set of documents to Thérouanne.Google Scholar

²⁰ Sdralek, , op. cit. 53–4, 138–9.Google Scholar

²¹ Ibid. 47.Google Scholar

²² Van Hove, , loc. cit. Google Scholar

²³ This decree also is found in Wolfenbüttel MS Gud. 212, in the same compilation although not at the same place as Sdralek's Beauvais canons. It occurs at fol. 52^r-v, near the beginning of the collection (which starts at fol. 51^v). See Sdralek, , Wolf. Frag. 46 and 53.Google Scholar

²⁴ Items Nos. 19 and 20 (see the tabulation below) are inscribed as excerpts from letters of Urban II to the clergy and people of Milan respectively. Both inscriptions are wrong; the passages are from a letter of Alexander II (JL 4612) to the Milanese clergy. Cossart had recognized this false attribution, Sacrosancta concilia 10.800 (Mansi 21.126). For more detail on the matter see Gossman, , Pope Urban 99. In addition, No. 24 also is wrong. The pope is Gregory VII, not Gregory IV; but it is easy to see how VII could become iiii in a MS.Google Scholar

²⁵ The author wishes to thank the librarian at Avranches, M. Delalonde, for extending a cordial welcome, and also the staff of the Section latine of the Institut de Recherche et d'Histoire des Textes (IRHT) in Paris, for granting access to the extensive MS dossiers preserved there. The bibliography on Avranches 146 is large. The MS will be described in Williams, S., Codices Pseudo-Isidoriani, soon to appear in the Subsidia of the Monumenta iuris canonici. Hinschius did not personally examine this MS and considered it of little importance, although he does describe it: Decretales Pseudo-Isid. xxxii–xxxiii Jacqueline, B., ‘A propos des Dictatus papae: les Auctoritates apostolice sedis d'Avranches,’ RHD⁴ 34 (1956) 569–74, provides much general information. The Avranches MSS twice were catalogued in the French Catalogue général series. The first, by a Taranne, M., is in Cat. gin. in 4° 4 (Paris 1872), with MS 146 at p. 501. The second description, by Omont, H., does not entirely supersede the first: Cat. gin. in 8° 10 (Paris 1889) pp. 67–8.Google Scholar

²⁶ Jacqueline, , loc. cit. 569, gives wrong folio numbers for Pseudo-Isidore and the papal catalogue.Google Scholar

²⁷ Ramackers, J., Papsturkunden in Frankreich (Neue Folge) 2: Normandie (Abh. Ges. Göttingen, Dritte Folge 21; Göttingen 1937) 43. Prior to the work of Sdralek, the occurrence of these two fragments in the Avranches MS was the only known evidence for the Paschal letters from which they derive. The reference to them in Jaffé is from Loewenfeld, S., Epistolae pontificum Romanorum ineditae (Leipzig 1885) 78 Nos. 156–7, who used the Avranches text. In his work on MS Gud. 212 from Wolfenbüttel, however, Sdralek discovered, in the epistolary section which concludes the codex, the complete letter JL 6602, including, beyond the previous known text, an address, date, and introductory sentence. See Wolf, Frag. 114–5, where the full letter is edited.Google Scholar

²⁸ Cat. gin. in 4° 4.558; Cat. gin. in 8° 10.1–3, and 6.Google Scholar

²⁹ Jacqueline, , ‘Dictatus papae’ (see n. 25 above) 572. The dossier at IRHT states that the book probably was written at Mont-St.-Michel. Handwritten notes in the copies kept at the library in Avranches of Cat. gin. in 8° and of Desroches, J. J., ‘Notice sur les MSS de la bibliothèque d'Avranches,’ Mémoires de la société des antiquaires de Normandie 1 (2^e série; 1840) 112, go further and declare that the MS had been written by a monk named Giraldus in the scriptorium at Mont-St.-Michel.Google Scholar

³⁰ See both the Cat. gén. in 8° and in 4°. See also Seckel, E. and Fuhrmann, H., Die erste Zeile Pseudoisidors, die Hadriana-Rezension … (Sitzungsberichte Akad. Berlin 1959 No. 4) 16 n. 15. The dossier for the codex at IRHT calls the Pseudo-Isidorian text eleventh century.Google Scholar

³¹ The two Paschal fragments which precede the Beauvais decree are dated thus: JL 6602 in 1112 (see Sdralek, , Wolf. Frag. 114), and JL 6543 between 1113–17 (see at the proper place in Jaffé).Google Scholar

³² Stickler, , Historia 185; van Hove, , Prolegomena 334 n. 1.Google Scholar

³³ Stickler, , loc. cit. 186; van Hove, , loc. cit. n. 2. Van Hove here, as in all his comments noted in the present study, is following information conveyed to him by Professor De Smet (see n. 14 and 19 above; and see also De Smet, J. M., ‘De Monnik Tanchelm en de Utrechtse Bisschopszetel in 1112–1114,’ Scrinium Lovaniense — Mélanges historiques Étienne van Cauwenbergh [Université de Louvain: Recueil de travaux et de philologie, 4^e série, 24; Louvain 1961] 223 n. 3, and passim). For details on the Ten Parts reference should be made to Fournier, P., Yves de Chartres 147–56 (= Bibl. de l'École des Charles 58.433–42); Bras, Fournier-Le, Histoire 2.296–306; Gassó, P. M. and Battle, C. M., Pelagii I papae epistulae. … (Scripta et documenta 8; Barcelona 1956) xlv–xlvi; Gossman, , Pope Urban 93–102; Stickler, , loc. cit. ; and van Hove, , loc. cit. 334. The preface to the collection has been edited by Theiner, A., Disquisitiones criticae (Rome 1836) 166 n. 8.Google Scholar

³⁴ The most complete list of MSS is in Fournier-Le Bras, Histoire 2.296. The Paris MS was that on which Fournier's analysis was based: Fournier, Yves de Chartres 147 n. 4 (Bibl. Éc. Ch. 58.433 n. 4). It also is mentioned by Dereine, C., ‘Enquéte sur la règle de saint Augustin’, Scriptorium 2 (1948) 31 (ibid. n. 17 dates the Ten Parts in 1126, but gives no reasons), and De Smet, , passim. — Ownership note on p. 1 of the Paris MS: ‘Iste liber est de thysauro ecclesie Ebroicensis’ (14th. cent according to Fournier, loc. cit.); see also p. 474: ‘Iste liber est de ecclesia Ebroicensi.’ A list of popes (pp. 3–7) ends with Honorius II; it perhaps is on this basis that Fournier dated the MS in the first half of the twelfth century.Google Scholar

³⁵ This decree occurs in an odd situation in the Paris copy of the Ten Parts. 8.16 begins at p. 406. The first two canons of that title — ‘De gradibus consanguinitatis recto et trans-verso ordine dispositis’ — are on 406–7. But 407 is not filled; and on 408 are found four additional texts (of which JL 6543 is one) concerning the same subject. This could mean the latter were posterior additions — there are such at the end of several of the collection's books; or the situation could be due simply to a scribal idiosyncrasy. Perhaps the copyist stopped after 8.16.2 on p. 407 one day, and then began 8.16.3 on p. 408 another day. Reference to a second MS of the Ten Parts could provide, in all probability, the solution.Google Scholar

³⁶ ‘Paschalis papa…. ’ Paris lat. (Bras, Fournier-Le, Histoire 2.302, in mentioning the presence of this letter in the Ten Parts, call its addressee Lambert of St.-Germain.) Google Scholar

³⁷ ‘concilii’ om. Paris lat.Google Scholar

³⁸ ‘Ex decretis…. ’ ibid. Google Scholar

³⁹ ‘cap.’ om. ibid. Google Scholar

⁴⁰ ‘Urbanus II in concilio Clarmontensi’ ibid. Google Scholar

⁴¹ The title 3.24 (for this and the previous decree) is erroneously numbered 3.27, in Paris lat.Google Scholar

⁴² ‘Urbanus II in concilio Clarmontensi, cap. xi’ ibid. Google Scholar

⁴³ ‘Urbanus II in concilio Romano, cap. xx’ ibid. Google Scholar

⁴⁴ ‘Item in eodem, cap. xii’ ibid. This is the only rubric in which the verbal similarity of the Avranches text leads to a substantial deviation from the Ten Parts. In the latter, ‘in eodem’ refers correctly to canon 12 of the legatine Council of Poitiers, 1100 (in the recension of the Wolfenbüttel MS [cf. Sdralek, Wolf. Frag. 137 and 41–2]; c. 8 in the editio vulgata, Mansi 20.1123. It is logical that the Ten Parts, with its origin at Thérouanne, should follow the enumeration of Sdralek's MS, whose contents derive ultimately from the same city.) By using the same form of inscription for a text placed after Urban IPs 1099 Council of Rome, ‘cap. vi’ (which in turn prompted the scribal error ‘vii’ for ‘xii’), the compiler of the Avranches MS made the ‘in eodem’ wrongly refer to that synod.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ ‘Urbanus’ om. Paris lat.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ This rubric was edited by d'Achery, Spicilegium, as ‘Urbanus Gar…. ’ Thus it also appears in the conciliar corpus. But the Avranches MS is not illegible at that point. The rubric there, and in the Paris Ten Parts, reads as given here; the correct place name is ‘Merseburgensi’: cf. JL 5474.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Evidence exists that the titular and capitular indications of the Paris codex of the Ten Parts may not be standard. Gossman, , in his analysis of Urban II's legislation contained in this compilation, used a MS from Vienna — Österreichische Nationalbibliothek 2178 (juris canonici 91): Gossman, , Pope Urban 93 n. 61. He indicated certain of Urban's decrees differently than they occur in B.N. lat. 10743. Only two pertain to the present discussion. Gossman, , ibid. 97, located Nos. 12 and 13 in the list above at 3.24.3 and 5 in the Viennese codex.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ The problem of the canons of Urban II's Council of Clermont is very involved. The Clermont decrees in the Ten Parts follow a series contained in the Nine Books ; see Sdralek, , Wolf. Frag. 132–136. This list is similar to, but not identical with, another version of these canons attributed to Lambert of Arras († 1115). It is the list of Lambert which stands first in the treatment of Clermont in the conciliar editions. Cf. Gossman, , Pope Urban 4–11; Williams, S., ‘Concilium Claromontanum, 1095: A New Text,’ SG 13 (Collectanea Stephan Kuttner 3; 1967) 27–43; and a forthcoming study by the present writer.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Cf. Gossman, , op. cit. 55.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ It might seem odd that numbers given for Clermont decrees in the Ten Parts and the Avranches MS are one less than Sdralek's. The explanation seems to be that in the Nine Books the first Clermont canon does not occur with the others at Bk. 9, c. 5, but instead at 9.2: see Sdralek, op. cit. 23 and 132. Thus it is likely that Walter of Thérouanne neglected the decree at 9.2 when numbering certain of the Clermont provisions he used, and looked only at the series in 9.5. This would place his enumeration one below that of Sdralek. And even though Walter does include the 9.2 canon in the Ten Parts (at 2.57.8 — Paris lat. 10743 p. 118) he assigned it no number.Google Scholar

⁵¹ See Fransen, G., ‘Varia ex manuscriptis,’ Traditio 21 (1965) 516–17.Google Scholar

⁵² The Clermont canons for instance are derived from the Nine Books (see n. 48 above); the authentic Beauvais canon is found in the Ten Parts but not the Nine Books, though elsewhere in MS Gud. 212 (see above n. 23).Google Scholar

⁵³ A word should be added about three other canonical collections which are related to the Ten Parts — the Summa Haimonis, and the First and Second Collections of Châlons-sur-Marne — all compiled in the 1130's: cf. van Hove, Prolegomena 334. It is impossible for any of these post-Ten Parts compilations to be associated with the Avranches text. Even though they all are related closely to Walter of Thérouanne's collection, none contains all the decrees found in the set of provisions at the end of Avranches 146.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ The author examined the Boulogne codex on microfilm at IRHT in Paris. For partial descriptions of it see Cat. gén. in 4° 4.624–5, and Leroquais, V., Les sacramentaires et les missels manuscrits 1 (Paris 1924) 274–5. In addition, IRHT has a helpful dossier on the book. Both the catalogue and Leroquais describe the MS as written in the second half of the twelfth century; but the IRHT information states that it probably was written during the episcopate of Bishop Lambert of Arras (1094–1115), due to a paleographical resemblance with MS 974 at the Bibliothèque municipale at Arras, which was copied for Lambert.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ The author has found elsewhere canons 4–7 of the Boulogne list ascribed to Calixtus II's 1119 Council of Reims. This attribution is to be considered in a future article.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Sdralek, , Wolf. Frag. 53 n. 3, mentions that the text as it appears in Wolfenbüttel MS Gud. 212 is verbatim that printed in Mansi 21.124.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ See above n. 20.Google Scholar