¹ “The Handbook of Master Peter Chancellor of Chartres,” Mediaeval Studies , V (1943), 1–38.Google Scholar

² “Mémoire sur quelques chanceliers de l'église de Chartres,” Mémoires de l'Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres , XXXI, ii (1884), 104 ff. Among other valuable information, we owe to Hauréau the unravelling of the confusion existing in older bibliographers between Peter of Roissy and Peter of Blois. The latter was a canon, but not chancellor, of Chartres in the twelfth century (d. after 1181; his obituary notice is printed, for November 30th, in Obituaires de la Province de Sens, II, ed. Molinier, A. [Paris, 1906], p. 109), exchanged letters with his more famous namesake and former classmate, the archdeacon of Bath (see the latter's epp. 76, 77, also 114 in PL. CCVII, 231-9, 342), and wrote a remarkable, widely read treatise (overlooked by Hauréau) on canonical distinctiones , ed. Reimarus, Th. (Berlin, 1837); cf. Schulte, , Geschichte der Quellen und Literatur des Canonischen Rechts (= QL.), I (Stuttgart, 1875), 207 f.; Kuttner, , Repertorium der Kanonistik (Città del Vaticano, 1937), pp. 220-2. Reimarus' (pp. xxxiii ff., xliv ff.), Schulte's, and Clerval's, A. (Les écoles de Chartres au moyen-âge [Chartres, 1895], p. 319) assumption that this Peter of Blois was a nephew of the archdeacon of Bath is based on the unwarranted identification of the canonist with an unnamed nephew, law student in Paris, who is mentioned in the archdeacon's ep. 71 (PL. CCVII, 219, also Chartularium Univ. Par. I, 33, nr. 28).Google Scholar

³ For other differences between the two redactions, see Kennedy, , p. 6 f.Google Scholar

⁴ Hauréau, , p. 119; Kennedy, , pp. 6, 11 ff.Google Scholar

⁵ The identification of the place of origin expressed by the eponym, Flamesburiensis, de Flamesburc (Flamesbure, Fflamesbroke, etc.), is owed to Warner, and Gilson, , Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Old Royal and King's Collections , II (London, 1921), 154 (on Brit. Mus. MS Royal 15. B. IV, fol. 146), and to Joyce, G. H., Christian Marriage (London-New York, 1933), p. 106, n. 3. Schulte, , QL. I, 209 interpreted the latin form by a non-existing “Flamesbury”, while Dietterle, J., “Die Summae confessorum,” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte (= ZKG.), XXVI (1905), 79, suggested the purely conjectural reading Fl. Amesburiensis from which he deduced the utterly fantastic hypothesis that Robert of St. Victor's name be Robert Pullen (not however the cardinal, who died in 1146 or 1153) of Amesbury near Salisbury. In the same vein, cf. van Hove, A., Prolegomena (Commentarium Lovaniense in Cod. Iur. Can., I, i, Mechliniae-Romae, 1928), p. 235, n. 3.Google Scholar

⁶ Oudin, Casimir, Commentarius de scriptoribus ecclesiae antiquis (Francfort, 1722), II, 1672; von Schulte, J. Fr., “Die canonistischen Handschriften der Bibliotheken … in Prag”, Abhandlungen der kgl. böhmischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, VI. Folge, II, ii (1868), 64 ff.; Roberti Flamesburiensis summa de matrimonio et usuris (partial edition, Giessen, , 1868); QL. I, 208-11; Hauréau, B., Notices et extraits de quelques mss. de la Bibliothèque Nationale, V (Paris, 1892), 164; Rose, V., Verzeichnis der lateinischen Handschriften der Kgl. Bibliothek zu Berlin, II, i (Berlin, 1901), 326, note; Dietterle, , “Die Summae confessorum,” ZKG. XXIV (1903), 363-74; cf. XXVI (1905), 79; Saltet, L., Les réordinations (Paris, 1907), p. 351 f.; Gillmann, F., “Das Ehehindernis der geistlichen Verwandtschaft aus der Busse”, Archiv für katholisches Kirchenrecht (= AKKR.), XC (1910), 250, n. 3; cf. also CVII (1927), 375; CXVI (1936), 96; Teetaert, A., La confession aux laïques dans l'église latine (Wetteren-Bruges-Paris, 1926), p. 234 f.—and many other authors occasionally referring to Robert.Google Scholar

⁷ As a forerunner of the Summae confessorum we may consider the Poenitentiale of Bishop Bartholomew of Exeter, ed. Morey, A. in his Bartholomew of Exeter Bishop and Canonist (Cambridge, 1937), which holds the middle between a collection of penitential canons and a reasoned handbook (cf. Morey, p. 172). Robert's work shows signs in places of having been influenced by Bartholomew (cf. ibid. p. 171).—On a similar anonymous work of the twelfth century see Kuttner, , Repertorium, p. 240 f.Google Scholar

⁸ Cf. Schulte, , QL. II, 528; Teetaert, , op. cit. p. 348; Rubel, H. F., Chabham's Penitential and its Influence in the Thirteenth Century (Modern Language Ass. XI, Menasha, Wisc. 1925); Kurtscheid, B., A History of the Seal of Confession (trans. Marks, F. A., St. Louis, 1927), p. 133 f.; Fischer, H., Katalog der Handschriften der Universitätsbibliothek Erlangen, I (Erlangen, 1928), 434; Russell, J. C., Dictionary of Writers of Thirteenth-Century England (London-New York-Toronto, 1936), p. 158 f.—Beg.: “Cum miserationes domini … “.Google Scholar

⁹ A Summa mag. J. de cancia de penitencia was left in 1246 to Peterborough Abbey, cf. nr. 83 of the bequests of abbots in James, M. R., List of MSS formerly in Peterborough Abbey Library (Transactions of the Bibliographical Society, Suppl. V, Oxford, 1926) and num. 259 (H. xii) in the fourteenth-century catalogue, ibid. See also num. 237 (I. xi = bequests, num. 107): Summa mag. J. de Cancia de decretis, and two copies of a Summa mag. Johannis de Cantia in the catalogue of Ramsey Abbey (Chronicon Abbatiae Rameseiensis ed. Macray, R.S., London, 1886, pp. 362, 364)—all cited by Russell, , Dictionary, p. 59, who suggests several possible identifications. But the men he mentions lived rather late, at least too late for authorship of the work bequeathed in 1246 (not all MSS, however, must have contained the same work). Note that an unidentified canonist Jo. de chent. is cited already during the last years of the twelfth century in the Quaestiones Londinienses (Kuttner, , Repertorium, p. 252); and that a Master John of Kent was chancellor of St. Paul's, London, in 1204; cf. Newcourt, R., Repertorium ecclesiasticum parochiale Londinense, I (London, 1708), 111; Gibbs, Marion, Early Charters of the Cathedral Church of St. Paul, London (Camden Third Series, LVIII, London, 1939), pp. xxxiv n. 3, 56 n. 1.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Cf. Schulte, , QL. I, 236; II, 412; Dietterle, , ZKG. XXIV, 520-7; XXVI, 79 f.; Walz, A., “Sancti Raymundi auctoritas in re paenitentiali,” Angelicum, XII (1935), 369; P. Mandonnet (see next note), p. 532 (= 257); Th. Kaeppeli, , “La tradizione manoscritta delle opere di Aldobrandino da Toscanella,” Archivum fratrum praedicatorum, VIII (1938), 186.—Beg.: “Hoc opusculum in tres partes diuiditur….” Google Scholar

¹¹ Cf. Kuhlmann, B. C., Der Gesetzesbegriff beim heiligen Thomas (Bonn, 1912), p. 65; Teetaert, , op. cit. p. 351, n. 4; Weisweiler, H., “Handschriftliches zur Summa de poenitentia des Magister Paulus von Sankt Nikolaus,” Scholastik, V (1930), 248-60; cf. XI (1936), 440 f.; Mandonnet, P., “La ‘Summa de poenitentia magistri Pauli presbyteri s. Nicolai’ (Magister Paulus de Hungaria O. P. 1220-1221),” Aus der Geisteswelt des Mittelalters: Studien und Texte Martin Grabmann … gewidmet (Münster, 1935), I, 525-44; reprinted in Saint Dominique (Paris, 1938), I, 249-69 (see also Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, VI [1913], 902); Kuttner, , Repertorium, pp. 411-3; Banfi, F., “Paolo Dalmata detto Ongaro,” Archivio storico per la Dalmazia, XXVII (1939), 43-62, 133-50 (with many doubtful and methodically unsound theses concerning Paul's life and writings; in particular no conclusive evidence is given for the contention that he was of Dalmatian origin).—Printed without identification in Bibliotheca Casinensis, IV (1880), 191-215. Beg.: “Quoniam circa confessiones….” Google Scholar

¹² Oudin, , II, 1273; Schulte, , QL. I, 211; Göller, E., Die päpstliche Pönitentiarie (Rome, 1902), I, 59; Teetaert, , “Le ‘Liber Poenitentialis’ de Pierre de Poitiers,” Aus der Geisteswelt des Mittelalters, I, 310-31; Cheney, C. R., “La date de composition du Liber Poenitentialis attribué à Pierre de Poitiers,” Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale, IX (1937), 401-4; Moore, P. S., The Works of Peter of Poitiers (Notre Dame Publications in Mediaeval Studies, I, 1936), pp. 22 ff., 131, 168. Not to be confused with the homonymous chancellor of Paris (1193-1205).—Beg.: “Compilatio presens materiam habens confessionem….” Google Scholar

¹³ For the date see Kuttner, , Repertorium , pp. 443–5.Google Scholar

¹⁴ QL. I, 209, citing Stephen's, ep. 36 (ed. Desilve, J., Les lettres d'Etienne de Tournai [Paris, 1893], p. 46 = ed. Du Molinet, , PL. CCXI, ep. 30) to one magister Robertus, which speaks of “prisca studiorum nostrorum communio”. Cf. also Saltet, , Les réordinations, p. 351; Dietterle, , ZKG. XXIV, 364.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Warichez, J., Etienne de Tournai et son temps (Tournai-Paris, 1937), pp. 25, 29 ff.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Schulte, , loc. cit. Cf. Potthast, , Regesta Pontif. Rom. nrs. 2534, 2750. Among the co-delegates was also Robert Courçon.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Cartulaire de l'église de Notre-Dame de Paris , ed. Guérard, , I (Collection des cartulaires de France, IV, Paris, 1850), nr. 120, p. 114.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Gillmann, , art. cit., AKKR. XC (1910), 250, n. 3.Google Scholar

¹⁹ The decanus Saresberiensis is addressed in the prologue. Cf. Schulte, , loc. cit. ; Dietterle, , ZKG. XXIV, 367, n. 1 (identifying Richard Poore with the canonist Richardus Anglicus [? cf. supra, I, 284, n. 25]); Cheney, C. R., English Synodalia of the Thirteenth Century (Oxford, 1941), p. 54.Google Scholar

²⁰ On this man, see Warichez, , op. cit. pp. 232 ff.; Stephen of Tournai, ep. 197 (Desilve, p. 116 = PL. CCXI, ep. 166). Warichez however identifies the Master Robert of ep. 36 (30) not with the abbot of St. Vincent but with Robert de Gallardon, prior of Pontigny, addressee of Stephen's ep. 1 (71); cf. op. cit. p. 39, n. 3; pp. 72, 112.Google Scholar

²¹ Father Theodore C. Petersen informs me that a MS of the Pierpont Morgan Library refers to our author as Robertus Fleminge, and the medieval catalogue of Peterborough Abbey shows the entries, Q.v.: Liber penitencialis mag. Roberti Flauiensis uel de s. Victore (James, nr. 106) and Tractatus mag. Roberti Flauiensis sic incipiens, Res grandis (James, nr. 175). Less serious distortions, such as Flammesbuc, Flamesbut, etc. are frequent.Google Scholar

²² The Quaestiones (pp. 32-80) discuss decretal law without reference to the Compilatio I (while another reportatio in the same MS, pp. 84b-112, makes use of this collection), and cite decretals from a systematic collection which must have belonged to the so-called Bambergensis-group (of French origin, in the eighties; see Kuttner, , Repertorium , pp. 292 ff. and supra, I, 285, n. 30). Cf. e.g. p. 32a: “… in illa decetali, Ex parte. xxxii. tit.” (Jaffé-Loewenfeld, , Regesta Pont. Rom. nr. 13877; cf. Coll. Bamb. 33, 22; Coll. Lips. 35, 22); p. 38b: “… in illa decr. Significasti .ixviiii. (?) tit.” (JL. nr. 14107; cf. Lips. 59, 26); p. 39a: “… ex. Quesiuisti .xli. tit.” (JL. nr. 13830; cf. Lips. 47, 17); p. 39a on a privilege of the monachi albi “.xxxv. tit.” (cf. the title De decimis a monachis prestandis et non prestandis in Bamb. 25; Cass. 35); ibid.: “… ex. Peruenit. xiii. tit.” and “… Licet de benignitate .xxv- tit.” (JL. nrs. 13962, 14068; cf. Bamb. 13, 4 and 25, 7; Lips. 13, 4 and 23, 11); p. 47b: “… ex. Peruenit tit. de matrim.” (JL. nr. 14214; cf. Bamb. 50, 37; Lips. 59, 57; Cass. 58, 39).Google Scholar

²³ The prologue has been printed several times, e.g. by Baluze, , Miscellanea , VII, 345 (= II, 241 cd. Mansi); Rose, V., Verzeichnis der lateinischen Handschriften … (supra, n. 6), II, i, 326, note; Dietterle, , ZKG. XXIV, 366.—Schulte (Die canonistischen Handschriften, p. 65; QL. I, 209), Dietterle and Rose contend that the original work consists, notwithstanding the words of the prologue, of ten parts, because the text is thus divided in the MSS Prague, Lobkowitz 432 and Leipzig, University Library 345, where the book De vitiis (IV) is distributed over six rubrics (IV-IX). Rose, , loc. cit. therefore considers a certain MS in five books (Diez B.16) as but “ein kürzerer und beschränkterer Entwurf”. Also MS 238 of Pembroke College in Cambridge (fols. 153-79) seems to belong to the class of the ten-book division, since it breaks off in bk. VII, according to E. H. Minns' catalogue (Cambridge, 1905). We can not determine at present whether this division was but a scribal velleity or due to another, more detailed, recension; certainly however the original work comprised only five parts as outlined in the prologue and confirmed by several early thirteenth-century MSS.Google Scholar

²⁴ Several MSS of Paris and MS Leipzig 345 were already known by Oudin, II, 1672. More recent authors indicated the following copies: Prague, , Lobkowitz 432 (Schulte, , Die canonistischen Handschriften, p. 64); Bamberg Q. VI. 42 (now Patr. 132), Erlangen 233 (now 359), Troyes 817 (Schulte, , QL. I, 209, n. 4); Paris, B. N. lat. 13455, 16505, 18082, 18201, Bibl. de l'Arsenal 386, 526 (not 525), 769, Avranches 230, Chartres 300 (now 254), Troyes 1315, 1339 (Hauréau, , Notices et extraits, V, 164; see also VI, 17, 89); Diez B. 16, Berlin lat. fol. 212 (Rose, , loc. cit. and nr. 823); Vatican Reg. lat. 983 (Göller, , op. cit. [supra n. 12], p. 58, n. 4); Paris lat. 13454, 16418, Münster fol. 316 (Dietterle, , ZKG. XXIV, 365, n. 1); Paris lat. 3529 (Saltet, , Les réordinations, p. 351, n. 2); Basel B. VII. 30 (Teetaert, , La confession aux laïques, p. 234); Vatican Reg. lat. 395 (Kuttner, , Repertorium, p. 435, n. 2).— The following additions are taken at random from some easily accessible catalogues: Cambridge, Pembroke College 238 (cf. note 23), London, B.M. Royal 15. B. IV (cf. note 5, supra), Paris, Arsenal 379, Soissons 129, Vendôme 150. On Ann Arbor, Univ. of Michigan, MS 52 see infra. This list does not purport to be exhaustive, to say nothing of MSS from medieval libraries that are now lost, as e.g. the two from Peterborough Abbey (cf. note 21, supra), one from St. Augustine's, Canterbury (D.7.G.3 in James, M. R., The Ancient Libraries of Canterbury and Dover [Cambridge, 1903], p. 266, nr. 647), one from the Abbey of Longpont, Soissons (D.6:cf. Morey, , Bartholomew of Exeter, p. 166), two from the Grande-Chartreuse (Fournier, P., “Notice sur la bibliothèque de la Grande-Chartreuse”, Bulletin de l'Académie delphinoise, 4^e série, I [1886], 369, 386), and so on. We may wonder how Dietterle, who treated ex professo on Summae confessorum, could speak (p. 365) of the “rare” MSS and cite but seven at all.Google Scholar

²⁵ Fischer, H., Katalog (cf. note 8, supra), I, 424. Dietterle, , p. 366, n. 3, seems to give credence to the rubric.Google Scholar

²⁶ For Schulte's partial edition see note 6, supra, for the prologue, note 23.Google Scholar

²⁷ Cf. note 24, supra. Google Scholar

²⁸ Such are indicated by the MSS dividing the work into ten books, cf. note 23 supra. The MS of Leipzig has also additional matter at the end, see Dietterle, , p. 367 f.Google Scholar

²⁹ They are JJ.6, P.19 and RR.22 respectively, all of the early thirteenth century. For other matter in MS 769 (RR. 22) see also Kuttner, , Repertorium , p. 435 and supra, I, 331, n. 40.Google Scholar

³⁰ The MS, superficially described in De Ricci's and Wilson's Census, contains (i) Robert's Poenitentiale, prol.-III, tit. de simonia (incomplete, fols. Al-A16v); IV-V (fols. l-24v); (ii) fols. 25ra-36vb: Statutes of the fourth Lateran Council; (iii) fols. 37ra-43vc, 45ra-48vc: Bulgarus, , Apparatus in tit. de regulis iuris , an unknown copy of the work edited by Beckhaus, F. G. C. (Bonn, 1856), with glosses different from those discussed by Haenel, G., “Zu Bulgarus Commentar des Pandektentitels De Regulis Juris,” Berichte über die Verhandlungen der kgl. sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Cl. XXVII (1875), 231-55; (iv) fol. 44r: a fragment of allegations for a law suit, probably French; (v) fols. 48va-52rb; the title de verborum significatione of the Digest; (vi) fol. 52va and 52rb in part: legal definitions, beg. “Irenarcha”; (vii) fols. 53ra-58rb: the so-called Ulpianus de edendo, a well known anglo-norman treatise on civil procedure, c.1150, with glosses; (viii) a tract de appellationibus, beg. “Videndum est quid sit appellatio, quis possit appellare …”, to be discussed elsewhere.Google Scholar

³¹ Gillmann, , AKKR. XC (1910), 250, n.3, quoting from MS Bamberg Patr. 132 (= B; only the second sentence, “Ego autem …”); MS Ann Arbor 52, fol. A15v (= A); Kennedy, , p. 4, n.18, for Peter of Roissy (= P). Readings: a) tamen P. b) sola sua P. c) ex ordinare corr. A. d) fures add. P. e) istud uit. B, illud uit. P. f) om. P. g) ubicumque P. h) ibi P. Google Scholar

³² Cf. the text in Kennedy, , p. 11 (“Pueris biennibus …”; “Duobus presbyteris [rectius pueris] …”). The entire context is also given in Hauréau, , Mémoire sur quelques chanceliers , p. 115, n. 2.Google Scholar

³³ Kennedy, , pp. 6 f., 13 ff.Google Scholar

³⁴ For instance, the passage on simony (“Tutius preterea …”) given by Hauréau, p. 119, n. 1, and Kennedy, p. 11, betrays decidedly Robert's style and overcautious spirit, but it cannot be checked in the incomplete chapter de simonia of the MS of Ann Arbor. Robert's authorship may also be presumed for the passages given by Kennedy, , p. 11, nn. 72, 74; p. 15 (“Bigamus dicitur …”); p. 16, n. 101.Google Scholar

³⁵ pp. 10, 15.Google Scholar

³⁶ The administration of the sacrament of penance was strictly parochial before the time of the mendicants. Cf. e.g. Gratian, C. 16, q.1, p.c.19; Alan of Lille, Liber poenitentialis (PL. CCX, 299); Robert Courçon's legatine council of Paris, 1212, I, 12 (Mansi, XXII, 822) and the Lateran canon Omnis utriusque of 1215. See also Kirsch, P. A., “Der sacerdos proprius in der abendländischen Kirche …,” AKKR. LXXXIV (1904), 527–37; Amann, E., “Pénitence,” Dict. théol. cath. XII, i (1933), 928 f.Google Scholar

³⁷ The penitentiary of St. Victor heard the confessions not only of the clergy of the house but also of students of the University, cf. Saltet, , Les réordinations , p. 351.Google Scholar

³⁸ Kennedy, , p. 4.Google Scholar

³⁹ Ibid. p. 2.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Ibid. p. 3.Google Scholar