Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:05:41.315Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Two Anglo-Norman Summae

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2016

Brian Tierney
Brian Tierney*
Affiliation:
Cornell University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Summa Prima primi and the Summa Quamvis leges seculares were described by Kuttner and Rathbone in 1951 as two intimately related works of the Anglo-Norman school which were deserving of closer examination in future studies. These summae were significant, it was pointed out, as introducing a new stage in the literary output of the English schools, a stage marked by the reception of Bernard of Pavia's Breviarium and by a close dependence on Huguccio as the principal guide for the interpretation of the Decretum. The texts of the two summae have now been transcribed and collated in preparation for an eventual edition. This work makes it possible to explain their relationship to one another and to Huguccio. It also opens up a fresh set of problems concerning the connection between the Summa Prima primi and a little-known Summa Duacensis in MS Douai 649, fol. 96ra-140vb (D).

Type
Institute of Research and Study in Medieval Canon Law: Bulletin for 1959
Information
Traditio , Volume 15 , 1959 , pp. 483 - 491
Copyright
Copyright © Fordham University Press 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Kuttner, S. and Rathbone, E., ‘Anglo-Norman Canonists of the Twelfth Century,’ Traditio 7 (1949–1951) 279–358 at 327. Cf. Kuttner, Repertorium 204–206.Google Scholar

2 L has the Glossa ordinaria in the recension of Bartholomaeus Brixiensis (Repertorium 106). The gloss composition in P combines glosses of the Huguccio period with younger materials. Cf. Kuttner, ‘Bernardus Compostellanus Antiquus,’ Traditio 1 (1943) 277–340 at 286.Google Scholar

3 There is a change of hand in L at fol. 329ra line 61. Google Scholar

4 Fol. 327vb: ‘Tenet enim appellatio … nisi hoc hodie immutatum sit ab innocentio ut in extra. de sententia excummunicationis, Per tuas’ (Po. 1830; 3 Comp. h.t. 5.21.14 [X 5.39.40]; Alanus 1.19.1 [W app. 18], whose title is ‘de officio iudicis ordinarli’); fol. 331ra: ‘Cognoscens uxoris consanguineam, si ignoranter, non separatur …, si scienter … separator … Set hoc totum est immutatum ab innocentio ut in extra. <de> diuortiis, Per tuas’ (Po. 1836; Alanus 4.10.1, whose title is ‘De eo qui cognouit consanguineam uxoris sue’). +diuortiis,+Per+tuas’+(Po.+1836;+Alanus+4.10.1,+whose+title+is+‘De+eo+qui+cognouit+consanguineam+uxoris+sue’).>Google Scholar

5 Another point is that, in referring to C.9 q.2 c.10, P has Londiniensis for Lugdunensis. Google Scholar

6 MS Rouen 743 (E 74) fol. 1ra. Google Scholar

7 Fol. 185ra. The text is emended from a corrupt reading in P, ‘Per factum enim forma deum …’ Google Scholar

8 Summa Prima primi ad D.1 (fol. 321ra), D.20 (fol. 321rb), D.40 (fol. 322ra), C.16 q.3 (fol. 329rb), D.85 (fol. 324rb).Google Scholar

9 ‘ Anglo-Norman Canonists’ 355.Google Scholar

10 Fol. 321ra. Google Scholar

11 Notably the comments ad D.20 and ad D.40 cited below. The doctrinal significance of these passages is discussed in my article, ‘Pope and Council: Some New Decretist Texts,’ Mediaeval Studies 19 (1957) 197–218.Google Scholar

12 Traditio 12 (1957) 466.Google Scholar

13 On some other contents of Douai 649 see ‘Anglo-Norman Canonists’ 315. Google Scholar

14 Admont MS 7, fol. 16ra; L, fol. 321rb; P, fol. 185rb. The word hec in P is a misreading for the arabic numerals 13 (read as h5). Google Scholar

16 Summa ad D.1, fol. 321ra.Google Scholar

16 Admont MS 7, fol. 24vb; L, fol. 321rb; D, fol. 97ra-rb. The comment of Huguccio on c.4, Inferior, is quite different from that of L and D. Google Scholar

17 This pattern of interpolations from D at points where P lacks any comment on a distinction occurs frequently in L, e.g. at D.15, D.21, D.30, D.36, D.47, D.48, D.52, D.58, D.60, D.62.Google Scholar

18 Admont MS 7, fol. 24rb; L, fol. 321rb; D, fol. 97ra. Google Scholar

19 P , fol. 185vb; L, fol. 322ra; D, fol. 99ra. The texts of L and D are printed more fully in Mediaeval Studies 19.217–218. The lengthy comment of Huguccio is printed in Foundations of the Conciliar Theory (Cambridge 1955) 248–250 and in J. F. v. Schulte, Die Stellung der Concilien, Päpste und Bischöfe (Prague 1871) 262–264. It should be noted that there are close verbal parallels between the Summa Duacensis and the corresponding passage in the ‘short version’ of Alanus’ apparatus Ius naturale. The text of Alanus is also printed in Mediaeval Studies 19 (1957) 218.Google Scholar