¹ For accounts of the foundation of the Collège Saint-Bernard, see Kwanten, F. E., ‘Le Collège Saint-Bernard à Paris: Sa fondation et ses débuts,’ Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique 43 (1948) 443–72 and Lawrence, C. H., ‘Stephen of Lexington and Cistercian University Studies in the Thirteenth Century,’ Journal of Ecclesiastical History 11 (1960) 164–78. For evidence suggesting that before 1256 Cistercians enroled in the Franciscan schools, see Bougerol, J. G., ‘Le Commentaire des Sentences de Guy de l'Aumône et son “Introitus”: Edition de textes,’ Antonianum 51 (1976) 495–519.Google Scholar

² Michaud-Quantin, P., ‘Guy de l'Aumône, premier maître cistercien de l'université de Paris,’ Analecta Sacri Ordinis Cisterciensis 15 (1959) 196; Bougerol, , ‘Le Commentaire’ 496.Google Scholar

³ Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis (edd. Denifle, H. and Chatelain, E.; Paris 1889–97) I no. 229. For a full account of how Guy obtained his license, see Michaud-Quantin, , ‘Guy’ 194–95.Google Scholar

⁴ See Lawrence, , ‘Stephen of Lexington’ 164–78.Google Scholar

⁵ For details of Guy's monastic career and the circumstances in which he became abbot, see ibid., 195–96. For a bibliography concerning the abbey of Aumône, see Bougerol, , ‘Le Commentaire’ 496 n. 4.Google Scholar

⁶ Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis I nos. 265 and 266. Lawrence, , ‘Stephen of Lexington’ 176–77, suggests another interpretation of events: ‘[I]t is quite likely that the threat of vigorous opposition in the order had persuaded those who were guiding the fortunes of the new college to postpone Master Guy's inception and to outflank the critics by seeing that it took place under the shelter of the supreme authority of the Church.’ Google Scholar

⁷ B.N. lat. 3424 and Troyes 1501. For descriptions of the former, see Lottin, O., ‘Un Commentaire sur les Sentences tributaire d'Odon Rigaud,’ Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 7 (1935) 402–5 (reprinted in Psychologie et morale aux xii ^e et xiii ^e siècles 6 [1960] 333–36); Pelster, F., ‘Beiträge zur Erforschung des schriftlichen Nachlasses Odo Rigaldis,’ Scholastik 11 (1936) 518–42 at 526–27; Michaud-Quantin, , ‘Guy’ 210; Bougerol, ‘Le Commentaire’ 499–500. For descriptions of Troyes 1501, see Pelster, , ‘Beiträge’ 525–26; Bougerol, , ‘Le Commentaire’ 497–98. Pelster first noted the similarity between the two mss, ‘Beiträge’ 527–28. Bougerol finally identified Troyes 1501 by comparing it with B.N. lat. 3424; see ‘Le Commentaire’ esp. 501–2.Google Scholar

⁸ Michaud-Quantin, , ‘Guy’ 214 n. 1, 215; Bougerol, , ‘Le Commentaire’ 513–15.Google Scholar

⁹ Lottin, , ‘Un Commentaire’ 403–5; Pelster, , ‘Beiträge’ 527–28; Stegmüller, F., Repertorium commentariorum in Sententias Petri Lombardi (Würzburg 1947) I no. 609; Michaud-Quantin, , ‘Guy’ 210, 215; Bougerol, , ‘Le Commentaire’ 501 n. 25, 516.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Bougerol, , ‘Le Commentaire’ 513–15.Google Scholar

¹¹ Lottin, , ‘Un Commentaire’ 404 n. 4.Google Scholar

¹² Bougerol, , ‘Le Commentaire’ 515–16.Google Scholar

¹³ Michaud-Quantin, , ‘Guy’ 210–15.Google Scholar

¹⁴ B.N. lat. 14891 fols. 176^ra–209^rb. For detailed descriptions of the ms, see Michaud-Quantin, , ‘Guy’ 197 and Bougerol, , ‘Le Commentaire’ 496–97. The latter includes a list of the contents of the entire ms. A detailed description of the structure and contents of Guy's Summa is given below.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Fols. 178–181.Google Scholar

¹⁶ See Michaud-Quantin, , ‘Guy’ 203–4.Google Scholar

¹⁷ See, for example, items 46, 78A, 88A, 93.Google Scholar

¹⁸ For example, in the proemium at fol. 176^ra .Google Scholar

¹⁹ For example, in the introduction to the treatise on the Old Testament (see item 8).Google Scholar

²⁰ See Michaud-Quantin, , ‘Guy’ 207.Google Scholar

²¹ Op. cit. 205–6.Google Scholar

²² Op. cit. 197, 206.Google Scholar

²³ Op. cit. 206. See also 207.Google Scholar

²⁴ Op. cit. 207.Google Scholar

²⁵ Op. cit. 208. See also 209.Google Scholar

²⁶ Op. cit. 208–9.Google Scholar

²⁷ Op. cit. 209.Google Scholar

²⁸ 1: proemium, item 7; 2: items 8–93; 3: items 94–105; 4: items 106–133.Google Scholar

²⁹ Items 84, 85, 86.Google Scholar

³⁰ For a detailed analysis of this part of the Summa, see Michaud-Quantin, , ‘Guy’ 208.Google Scholar

³¹ Item 94.Google Scholar

³² Item 95.Google Scholar

³³ Item 95.Google Scholar

³⁴ Item 96.Google Scholar

³⁵ Item 100. Item 96 also cites 1 Cor. 2.29 in framing the casus. Google Scholar

³⁶ Item 106.Google Scholar

³⁷ Item 123.Google Scholar

³⁸ Michaud-Quantin, , ‘Guy’ 207.Google Scholar

³⁹ Items 115, 116, 118, 119, 120–121, 124–125, 128–129, 130.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Item 127.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Items 99, 100, 101, 103.Google Scholar

⁴² Item 116A.Google Scholar

⁴³ Alexandri de Hales Summa Theologica IV Liber Tertius Prolegomena (Quaracchi 1948); for the date by which the first three books were complete, see lxxx–cxx.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Gorce, M., ‘La somme théologique d'Alexandre de Hales est-elle authentique?,’ New Scholasticism 5 (1931) 1–72 at 65–69, 71–72.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Alexandri de Hales Summa Theologica IV Liber Tertius Prolegomena xxx–xxxi.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ For previous work on the relationship between Guy's Summa and the Summa fratris Alexandri, see Minges, P., ‘De relatione inter prooemium Summae Alexandri Halensis et prooemium Summae Guidonis Abbatis,’ Archivum Franciscanum Historicum 6 (1913) 13–22, 433–38; Alexandri de Hales Summa Theologica IV Liber Tertius Prolegomena ccxlv–ccxlvi; Michaud-Quantin, , ‘Guy’ 201 esp. n. 1, 208. Where an item in Guy's Summa relates to the Summa fratris Alexandri, the question or passage from which it is derived is indicated in the description of the structure and contents of Guy's Summa. Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Alexandri de Hales Summa Theologica IV Liber Tertius Textus 890.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Op. cit. 890 n. 6. Likewise item 46A of Guy's Summa includes a cross-reference to a ‘tractatus de obedientia’ which does not exist and it would seem to be following a cross-reference in the Halesian Summa where a ‘tractatus de obedientia’ is similarly described and also does not exist; see op. cit. 662 and 662 n. 1.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ For example, item 93.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Item 46.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Alexandri de Hales Summa Theologica IV Liber Tertius Textus 890–94 and 895–923 respectively.Google Scholar

⁵² Items 74–88 and 88A respectively.Google Scholar

⁵³ Alexandri de Hales Summa Theologica IV Liber Tertius Textus 895.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Item 88A.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Item 79: ‘Set quoniam quedam inordinationes surgunt impatiencie ex inordinatione concupiscentie, et hoc vel respectu sui … vel respectu rerum suarum … vel respectu utriusque …’ Google Scholar

⁵⁶ See Michaud-Quantin, , ‘Guy’ 208 concerning the independence of items 5, 6, 7.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Alexandri de Hales Summa Theologica IV Liber Tertius Textus 936.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Op. cit. 880 in the introduction to the treatise on the New Testament, and 936 in a cross-reference in the introduction to the section ‘De discretione intentionis’ in the treatise on the New Testament.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ On ordinary lessons, see Glorieux, P., Repertoire des maîtres en théologie de Paris au 13 ^e siècle (Paris 1933–4) I 15–16; ‘L'enseignement au moyen âge: techniques et méthodes en usage à la faculté de théologie de Paris au xiii^e siècle,’ AHDLMA 35 (1968) 65–186 at 109–11.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ On ordinary disputes, see Glorieux, , Repertoire I 17; ‘L'enseignement au moyen âge’ 123–28.Google Scholar

⁶¹ On quodlibetal disputes generally, see Glorieux, P., La littérature quodlibétique de 1260 à 1320 (Paris 1925 & 1935); ‘L'enseignement au moyen âge’ 128–34; Boyle, L. E., ‘The Quodlibets of St. Thomas and Pastoral Care,’ The Thomist 38 (1974) 232–56; Wippel, J. F., ‘The Quodlibetal Question as a Distinctive Literary Genre,’ in Les Genres Littèraires dans les sources théologiques et philosophiques médiévales: Définition, critique et exploitation. Actes du Colloque International de Louvain-la-Neuve 25–27 mai 1981 (Louvain-la-Neuve 1982) 67–84; Wippel, J. F., ‘Quodlibetal Questions, chiefly in Theology Faculties,’ Les Questions disputées et les questions quodlibétiques dans les facultés de théologie, de droit et de médecine (Typologie des sources du moyen âge occidental 44–45; Turnhout 1985). On the specific issue of the types of argument used in quodlibets, see the comments of Leclercq, J., ‘Deux questions de Berthaud de Saint-Denys sur l'exemption fiscale du clergé,’ Études d'histoire du droit canonique dédiées à Gabriel le Bras … (Paris 1965) I 607–17 at 608.Google Scholar

⁶² Glorieux, , La littérature quodlibétique I 21, 83–87; II 10; Wippel, , ‘The Quodlibetal Question’ 71–74; Wippel, , ‘Quodlibetal Questions’ 165, 171.Google Scholar

⁶³ Glorieux, , La littérature quodlibétique II 11; Glorieux, , ‘L'enseignement au moyen âge’ 124–25; Wippel, , ‘The Quodlibetal Question’ 72; Wippel, , ‘Quodlibetal Questions’ 165; Bazàn, B. C., ‘Les questions disputées, principalement dans les facultés de théologie,’ Les Questions disputées et les questions quodlibétiques dans les facultés de théologie, de droit et de médecine (Typologie des sources du moyen âge occidental 44–45; Turnhout 1985) 50–51, 58–59.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Glorieux, , La Littérature quodlibétique I 21–23, 27–28; II 10–14, 38–43; Wippel, , ‘The Quodlibetal Question’ 71–72; Wippel, , ‘Quodlibetal Questions’ 165–66.Google Scholar

¹ Exodus 19.21.Google Scholar

² 1 John 2.16.Google Scholar

³ ms: quicumque.Google Scholar

⁴ Exodus 20.7.Google Scholar

⁵ Exodus 20.8.Google Scholar

⁶ Exodus 20.12.Google Scholar

⁷ ms: mandatu? Google Scholar

⁸ This word is indecipherable, but the sense is clear.Google Scholar

⁹ Exodus 20.13.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Exodus 20.14.Google Scholar

¹¹ Exodus 20.15.Google Scholar

¹² Exodus 20.16.Google Scholar

¹³ Exodus 20.17. Google Scholar

¹⁵ I have not been able to identify a source here. Interestingly, the same phrase is used in the Halesian Summa in the section on which this passage is almost certainly based and the modern editors have neither identified a source nor suggested that one is to be found; see Alexandri de Hales Summa Theologica IV Liber Tertius Textus q. 444, p. 648.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Numbers 15.32–36.Google Scholar

¹⁷ ms: flagelli.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Deuteronomy 25.2–3, with slight variations in the wording.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Exodus 21.23.Google Scholar

²⁰ Exodus 22.18.Google Scholar

²¹ ms: misericordiam.Google Scholar

²² I have not yet been able to identify this reference to Augustine. It is worth noting that this reference is not used in the section of the Halesian Summa on which this passage is possibly based.Google Scholar

²³ ms: quinquiplum.Google Scholar

²⁴ Guy's question is too short to establish any certain relationship.Google Scholar

²⁵ Again, Guy's question is too short to establish any certain relationship.Google Scholar

²⁶ Item 52B; fol. 187^va .Google Scholar

²⁷ Ibid. Google Scholar

²⁸ This is a reference to item 52A.Google Scholar

²⁹ Deuteronomy 22.6–7.Google Scholar

³⁰ Ibid. Google Scholar

³¹ ms: intistutionem.Google Scholar

³² Item 67A; fol. 192^rb .Google Scholar

³³ Matthew 5.21–22.Google Scholar

³⁴ Matthew 5.23–24.Google Scholar

³⁵ Matthew 5.25.Google Scholar

³⁶ Matthew 5.23–24.Google Scholar

³⁷ Matthew 5.25.Google Scholar

³⁸ Ibid. Google Scholar

³⁸ Matthew 5.31.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Matthew 5.28.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Matthew 5.29.Google Scholar

⁴² Matthew 5.27–28.Google Scholar

⁴³ ms: contempnerit.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ In Matth. hom. 17 n. 2 (PG 57.257).Google Scholar

⁴⁵ This question is 'second' to the general question posed earlier by ‘Circa hoc inquiramus primo intelligentiam et rationem huius precepti …’ Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Matthew 5.29.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Matthew 5.39.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Matthew 5.40.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Matthew 5.41.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Matthew 5.42.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Luke 6.30.Google Scholar

⁵² Matthew 5.42.Google Scholar

⁵³ Luke 6.35.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Matthew 5.43–44.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Item 67A; fol. 192^va .Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Matthew 5.34.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Matthew 5.37.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ ms: iniustitiam.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Matthew 6.1.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Matthew 6.20.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Matthew 6.22.Google Scholar

⁶² Matthew 6.24.Google Scholar

⁶³ Matthew 7.1.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Matthew 7.15.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Matthew 6.1.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ ms: sustententur.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Matthew 6.22.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Matthew 6.24.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Matthew 6.31.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ ms: nommos.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Matthew 7.1.Google Scholar

⁷² Matthew 7.15.Google Scholar

⁷³ Deuteronomy 16.18.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ ms: dignitatis.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ 1 Corinthians 6.2.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ ms: bibent.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Leviticus 10.9–10.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ ms: abusi.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Matthew 7.1.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Matthew 7.3.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Matthew 7.6.Google Scholar

⁸² Matthew 7.15.Google Scholar

⁸³ 2 Corinthians 11.14.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ 1 Corinthians 2.29.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Moralium 32.20.37 (PL 76.1066).Google Scholar

⁸⁶ ms: quid.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ ms: excerscat.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ ms: cum qua.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ ms: superponat.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Matthew 15.4.Google Scholar

⁹¹ ms: relinquat.Google Scholar

⁹² ms: Iterum.Google Scholar

⁹³ Note that in the Halesian Summa, cases 96–100 were ‘casus perplexitatis circa operationes spirituales’ and 101–105 were ‘casus perplexitatis in operationibus corporalibus.’ Here the compiler of Guy's Summa would seem to have made a mistake in using the structure of the Halesian Summa. Google Scholar

⁹⁴ ms: repetat.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ ms: fenerabitur.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ ms: reddat.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ ms: inicit.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Moralium 32.20.36 (PL 76.1065–66).Google Scholar

⁹⁹ ms: sua.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ ms: qui.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ ms: oporteret.Google Scholar

¹⁰² Matthew 10.9.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ Luke 10.4.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ ms: bacculum.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ ms: unde.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ ms: necesse.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ Deuteronomy 14.28–29.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ ms: debet.Google Scholar