The fact that the question of war guilt has frequently followed in the wake of major wars has contributed little, if anything, to a clarification of the concept. The perplexing difficulties raised by it are amply illustrated by the unsuccessful attempts, made periodically at various ages and on various levels of civilization, to arrive at criteria permitting a differentiation between the bellum justum and the bellum injustum. States, unlike individuals, are not confronted with simple choices between obeying or violating the law. Determination of the initial violation of existing covenants sheds little, if any, light on the responsibility for commencing war. Nor is such responsibility necessarily incurred by launching the first attack. Nothing could be more futile than to equate this act with aggressive and unjust war. The initial attack may be a legitimate response to an existing situation, and a war of aggression, as St. Augustine already pointed out, a just war; nor is there any reason to assume that the party forced into the defensive is invariably innocent. If war guilt is to be more than a specious pretense for inflicting punishment upon the vanquished, it can be measured only in terms of the alternatives available to a state, and the choice has to be viewed in the light of historical, ethical, and political factors. The assessment of such guilt is a problem of extraordinary complexity. To confine it to formal legal considerations would result not only in gross injustice, but would tend to perpetuate international tensions.

The absence of color prejudice in the Greco-Roman world has been noted by numerous classicists, anthropologists, and sociologists. Observations on this social phenomenon, however, have been usually made only in the most general terms, unaccompanied by detailed, specific discussion of the etiology of a racial outlook differing substantially from many later attitudes which attached great importance to the color of the skin.

It is now almost three hundred years since Dom Garet published as part of the complete works of Cassiodorus the last printed edition of Cassiodorus' treatise On the Soul. The present edition is intended to offer a critical text of the work based on a study of the manuscript evidence. The restrictions of this publication make it impossible to give an explanation of the entire history of the text transmission. The apparatus criticus does, however, represent the readings of the best specimens of the various manuscript families which constitute the major evidence for the text. It is my hope that it will be possible at some future time for me to defend in greater detail my choice of the MSS used here, and to outline the history of the transmission from the ninth through the twelfth century.

An explanatory foreword seems to be demanded by the studies in the English coronation ceremony here presented. I am conscious that on a number of points, views are now put forward incompatible with those I have expressed on other occasions since first I began to write on the subject. Further scrutiny of the evidence and the redating of some of the more important documents have, however, led me inevitably to conclusions at variance not only with those of other scholars, but with some that seemed plausible to me at the time of writing. What is principally in question is the history of the English coronation before 1308; but I have revised and elaborated the story of the evolution of the Fourth Recension of the English coronation office as it was presented by Professor Sayles and myself a good many years ago. It would be presumptuous on my part to pretend that I have given final answers to the many questions the tangled history of the English coronation provokes. I have changed my own mind too often to permit me to imagine that there may not be answers to those questions more satisfying than mine. But what I have written will, I trust, advance the study of obscure and complicated problems which have an important bearing upon the history of kingship in the Middle Ages and therefore upon medieval polity.

The ordinances on the Jews of 1223 and 1230 are generally described as the beginning of effective general legislation by the Capetians, yet agreement on the constitutional importance of the ordinances has not produced agreement on their precise meaning and significance. On the one hand, historians such as Esmein, Viollet, Declareuil, Chénon, Perrot, Fawtier, and Olivier-Martin, who followed Flammermont and Luchaire's analysis of royal legislative power, have held that all the provisions of both the 1223 and the 1230 ordinance bound both those who had consented and those who had not, and were applicable throughout the kingdom. On the other hand, an older view stemming from Brussel and Petiet, followed hesitantly by Glasson, and most recently advanced by Petit-Dutaillis, has maintained that, although the 1230 ordinance was applicable in its entirety throughout the kingdom, the ordinance of 1223 either applied in its entirety only to those who had consented to it, or else contained only one provision applicable to those who had not sworn to observe it. This disagreement results partly from ambiguities in the texts, but it is also a result of a failure to set the ordinances in the context of their avowed purposes.

Paul Kehr, in 1909, published the volume of his Italia Pontificia that deals with Umbria. In it he wrote that there had been preserved in the episcopal archives in Città di Castello three volumes, books of the bishopric or ‘Atti della Curia vescovile' from the thirteenth and following centuries. He also said that there had been an earlier first book of acta but that it had been sought by him in vain. This sort of reference, in Kehr, suggests lost treasure, material sufficiently valuable to draw one up the Tiber to Città di Castello to see what is actually there.

In the quest for the source of Chaucer's Parson's Tale investigators have discovered a number of texts that contain elements identical or similar to parts of Chaucer's treatise, though it is now generally conceded that none of the works thus far examined is in any sense a direct source of Chaucer's ‘Tale.' Among the larger units of the treatise Chaucer translated, none have so successfully eluded attempts to discover derivation as the remedia against the vices, contained in the tractate on the seven deadly sins (X[I]387-957). Earlier researchers have found in the postulated sources almost nothing that bears a close resemblance to the materials and their ordering in these sections. But these remedia contain, for the most part, doctrine that was established in the ethical tradition during the twelfth century and that proliferated widely during succeeding centuries: the ultimate source of this doctrine is the well-known Moralium dogma philosophorum, a treatise whose influence on ethical thinking during the late Middle Ages, particularly in the matter of the virtues and their ramifications, is enormous.

A notable feature of theological studies in the past decade has been a new and widespread interest in the subject of Tradition. Long considered as a peculiarly Roman Catholic problem to be solved, as it had been created, by the theologians of the ‘post-Reformation papal communion,' Tradition has now suddenly overleaped the walls of Rome to become the concern and serious preoccupation of theologians of widely differing backgrounds and convictions. Indeed, the new interest in Tradition is so closely associated with non-Catholics that it has almost become a commonplace to contrast recent theological developments among Protestants and Catholics by remarking, with some justice if some exaggeration, that now Protestants are going back to Tradition and Catholics going back to Scripture.

The use of the figure ‘Christ the Physician' and of related medical analogies has quite frequently arrested the attention of scholars investigating patristic literature. There is no need of tracing the ultimate origin of this motif, or of documenting its appearance in numerous writings of the Fathers, both Eastern and Western, since recent study has treated both of these aspects in some detail. In spite of this rather specialized research, however, one seeks in vain to locate the name ‘Romanos' in lists of those authors who have pictured Christ as the Divine Physician of body and soul. This article, then, will have as its specific purpose an analysis of the use of the medical motif in the kontakia of Romanos the Melodist (d. 556). Such an addition to the literature on this topic is warranted by the importance of the Romanos corpus in the history of Christian Greek letters and the corresponding importance of the ὁ Χϱιστòς ὁἰατϱóς theme as an illustration of the Melodist's poetic technique.

A previous study entitled ‘Liturgical Prayers of Pope Gregory I’ sought to establish links between some 80 prayer formulae of the Hadrianum and the recognized authentic works of Saint Gregory the Great. That study, begun and completed several years ago, did not take into account — unfortunately as now appears — works about which there had been controversy in the past and whose Gregorian authenticity was not unanimously accepted. For this reason no parallel texts were given from the Commentary on the First Book of Kings. But Dom P. Verbraken has recently shown in two convincing articles that hesitations concerning St. Gregory's authorship of the Commentary are not justified. Even though the diffusion of this work in the Middle Ages was a very restricted one, there can be no real doubt that it was written by St. Gregory himself. This conclusion was by itself a sufficient stimulus to set about analyzing the Commentary on Kings with a continual eye on the text of the Hadrianum, and the result has not been unrewarding: a new set of parallels can be added to those already published in the previous article, and in addition six new prayers inserted in the list. The very fact that such loca parallela can be found in the Commentary would seem in itself a further proof of the Gregorian authenticity of this work. A few texts have also been taken from the beginning of the Commentary on the Canticle of Canticles, also attributed to St. Gregory.

The treatise Ad viduam iuniorem is one of the few works of St. John Chrysostom that can be dated within a space of two or three years. In general the opinion is that it was composed early in Chrysostom's diaconate, which is usually considered to comprise the years 381 to 386. The establishment of the date of this treatise and the identification of the emperors mentioned in it provide evidence for a terminal date of Chrysostom's birth. This latter question will be discussed briefly after the two primary difficulties have been treated.

The history of the First Crusade is, in large part, the history of mass movements of men. The deeds of any individual in the Crusade, even those of the major leaders, cannot be traced in their entirety. The part played by any individual in the Crusade can only be sketched in outline and even then, puzzling gaps in the record can be expected to show up as a matter of course. Since this is true of the tangible, external actions of the Crusading leaders, it is no great surprise to find the same thing true of their thoughts, attitudes, and plans. It is true enough, again, in this context that something can be done to characterize the attitudes of the masses of the Crusaders, as these attitudes are reflected by chroniclers, poets, and popular writers of various kinds. But to try to recover the personal thoughts and attitudes of one or another of the major leaders of the Crusade is a far more difficult problem. On a few topics, where attitudes may easily and unequivocally be reflected by external acts, it is possible to make a fairly sure estimate of the thoughts and beliefs of one or another of the Crusading princes. When one speculates on such subjects, the only conclusion which can be reached is that these questions are unanswerable or that answers to them can be deduced only with great hesitation and circumspection from data which do not bear directly upon the central question at all.

The famous argument which Aristotle employs in that passage of his Physics known to the Schoolmen as Text 71 of Averroes' commentary on the fourth book, enjoys a long and distinguished history. Projected originally as a critique of the Atomists' most fundamental position — i.e., that reality is ultimately reducible to matter in motion through the void — it proved still later, as E. A. Moody and others have shown, to be equally potent as a germinal agent. The argument itself embodies, as basic, Aristole's belief that the speed with which a heavy body falls through corporeal media of diverse densities is in inverse proportion to the densities of the resistant media. Hence, Aristotle holds that the velocity of a body falling freely through a rarefied medium will be proportionally greater than if that body were passing through a more dense medium. It follows on this assumption that were a body to be let drop through a medium offering no resistance — a void — its speed would be infinitely great. As the traversal of a finite magnitude of totally evacuated space would thus, necessarily, be accomplished in no time at all, Aristotle concludes the impossibility of any motion taking place in a void.

In 343 A. D. the Synod of Sardica, speaking of priests to be sent by the pope e latere suo or, in the equally authoritative Greek version, used a figure of speech which, in its Latin form as a latere or de latere—both variants are already attested in the early transmission of the Sardican canons — became in time an important canonical concept. Although the bishops assembled at Sardica might at first seem to have coined a striking neologism, the phrase employed by them actually echoes certain passages of the Greek and Latin Bibles and the use made of those passages in some of the homilies of the Fathers. As we listen to the biblico-patristical overtones with which the term a latere resounds, the theological source of early canonical language becomes, for this one instance, perceptible again.

Attention is hereby directed to a recently established research center in England which cannot fail to offer opportunities for study to many scholars who work in some of the fields represented by Traditio. This center is the Borthwick Institute of Historical Research, founded in 1952 and occupying St. Anthony's Hall, York, a guildhall dating from the fifteenth century. The archives assembled there and administered under the direction of Canon J. S. Purvis cover a period in the history of North England of more than seven hundred years. The Institute's materials will enable students to explore the great variety of subjects, using documents which have never before been so fully available.

Students of Early Christian and Medieval civilizations have long been aware of the need for comprehensive and reliable bibliographies. This need has been felt even more keenly by those who are primarily interested in the East Christian world, for information on either primary sources or critical studies is too often scattered in books and periodicals which are not easily available even in large libraries. The recent publication by Hakob S. Anasian of the first volume of his Armenian Bibliology is a major event for these studies and deserves to be called to the attention of all medievalists. I wish to express here my thanks to the editors of Traditio who, realizing the significance of this publication, accepted the present article although it has been their general policy not to include book reviews in their journal.

1. Architectural Symbolism and Imperial Ideology: Smith, Architectural Symbolism. — 2. Justinian and the Idea of Empire: Rubin, Zeitalter Iustinians. — 3. Byzantine Iconoclasm: a. Grabar, Iconoclasme byzantin; Kitzinger, ‘Cult of Images,' etc.; b. Alexander, Patriarch Nicephorus. — 4. Early Christian Iconology of the Crucifixion: a. Grillmeier, Logos am Kreuz; b. Grabar, Ampoules de Terre-Sainte. — 5. Imago Dei: Crouzel, Image de Dieu chez Origène. — 6. Civitas Dei: Mommsen, Medieval and Renaissance Studies, Part III. —7. Opus Dei: Chavasse, Sacramentaire gélasien. — 8. Philology and Spirituality: a. Fichtenau, Arenga; b. Leclercq, Amour des lettres et désir de Dieu. — 9. Typology and Imagery: Schmidt, Armenbibeln. — 10. Transition and Continuity: A. Late Ancient and Medieval Art: Kunstgeschichtliche Anzeigen, Neue Folge, vol. 3 and vol. 4, 1 and 2. —B. Byzantium: a. Berichte zum XI. Internationalen Byzantinisten-Kongress, München 1958; b. Dumbarton Oaks Papers, vols. 8, 9-10, 11, and 12. —C. Middle Ages and Renaissance: a. Saxl, Lectures; b. Mommsen, Medieval and Renaissance Studies, Parts I and II.

Any careful study of the history of erudition in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries will uncover the names of many remarkable scholars whose work has not thus far been sufficiently evaluated. We may recall the names of Scipione Maffei, Iacopo Facciolati, Egidio Forcellini, Cardinal Angelo Maria Querini, Gian Domenico Mansi, Angelo Maria Bandini, Girolamo Lagomarsini and many others. Some of these men may not have possessed the keenest philological perception nor the deepest historical insight; still, nearly all of them were imbued with the humanist's innate taste for the classical languages; and with incredible dedication and enthusiasm they undertook gigantic works which would often seem to defy the forces of an individual scholar. Some of them did attain their ultimate goals: the monumental works of Muratori, Bandini and Forcellini were all completed. Others, often for reasons beyond their control, were unable to finish their tasks. Among the latter there is especially the Jesuit, Girolamo Lagomarsini. Born at Porto S. Maria (Cadiz) in 1698 of Genoese parents, he was in Rome from 1713 until 1720; he taught Rhetoric first in Arezzo and Prato, later in Florence, spending there the longest period, 1733-1751. It was in Florence that he undertook his magnum opus, an edition of Cicero's works which was to be in thirty volumes. Before he completed the work he was called to the Collegio Romano in Rome, where he taught Greek until his death in 1773.

Contents: Annual Report, by S. Kuttner. —Un fragment d'une collection systématique de décrétales antérieure àla ‘Compilatio prima,' by A. Vetulani and S. Kuttner (p. 534). —The ‘Poenitentiale' of Robert of Flamborough, by F. Firth, C.S.B. (p. 541). —Mitteilungen aus Handschriften, by R. Weigand (p. 556). —Select Bibliography 1959-1960 (p. 564). —Microfilms and Photostats Acquired in 1960 (p. 571).

Le MS 106 (nouvelle cote) de la Bibliothèque capitulaire de Cracovie contient la célèbre Summa aurea de Guillaume d'Auxerre, copiée sur parchement àPadoue avant 1234. Mais il contient aussi deux feuillets d'un ancien manuscrit juridique écrit très soigneusement sur deux colonnes, qu'un ancien relieur a pris pour feuillets de garde.