The Summa de penitencia of John of Kent

Study and Critical Edition

by

Samuel J Klumpenhouwer

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements

for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Centre for Medieval Studies

University of Toronto

© Copyright by Samuel J Klumpenhouwer 2018

ii

The Summa de penitencia of John of Kent

Study and Critical Edition

Samuel J Klumpenhouwer

Doctor of Philosophy

Centre for Medieval Studies

University of Toronto

2018

Abstract

This dissertation presents for the first time a critical edition of John of Kent’s Summa

de penitencia and an accompanying study of the text. The Summa is a thirteenth

century manual for confessors, informing them of the canon law of the Church and

advising them on how to properly hear confessions. The dissertation has four

introductory chapters before offering the edited text. The first chapter explains the

contribution this critical edition will make to the scholarly community. The second

chapter offers a general view of the scholastic milieu and pastoral reforms of the

twelfth and thirteenth centuries. It likewise examines the genre of pastoralia, within

which the Summa may be included. The third chapter offers all the known

biographical details of John of Kent, including several newly discovered details that

are discussed here for the first time. It also details the circumstances in which the

Summa was written. The fourth chapter is an introduction to the edition itself.

iii

Descriptions of the five extant manuscripts are here offered, as well as my

stemmatic hypothesis, editorial choices and formatting decisions. The remainder of

the dissertation is the critical edition of the Summa, which John of Kent divided into

three books. The first book primarily addresses clerical issues, such as

excommunication, simony and certain sacraments. The second book primarily

addresses lay issues, such as marriage, tithes and oaths. The final book is a fictional

priest/penitent dialogue where the penitent is depicted confessing various matters

in the confessional and the priest responding appropriately.

iv

Acknowledgements

A few short years ago, while sitting in Joseph Goering’s office, I expressed an interest in

producing a critical edition for my dissertation. Professor Goering promptly extracted a

dusty article from a pile of papers, thereby introducing me to John of Kent and his Summa

de penitencia. In the years since, my gratitude for this introduction has only increased. So too

for the many subsequent meetings with Professor Goering, which were always formative

and pleasant.

A full decade ago I met my supervisor, Giulio Silano. I was then an undergraduate student

attending his freshman seminar. I had no intention of being a historian, let alone a historian

of canon law, but each passing year brought me closer to that result. I will not try here to

express the weighty influence Professor Silano had on me as a scholar and a person. The

many years of study under him have been an unexpected gift which I am a dearly thankful

for. There is a moment in John of Kent’s Summa where John speaks of his magister, Ricardus

Anglicus. I always considered this a charming symmetry, and perhaps providential, for it

was Ricardus whom my own magister edited for his dissertation.

I also give thanks to the other members of my committee, Lawrin Armstrong and

Alexander Andrée. Each has been continually supportive of my desire to produce a critical

edition, and I have wholly enjoyed their guidance. It was through them that I learned the

many technical skills needed to be an editor of medieval texts. It was also through Professor

Armstrong’s seminar on diplomatics that I first found my desire to work as an editor.

From the beginning of my graduate studies I have been blessed with a close friend, Jason

Brown. It is truly a rare gift to encounter someone with such kindred scholarly and

religious interests. I must also thank Professor Adam Barkman, my first mentor, who

encouraged me to take up studies at the University of Toronto. It was through him that I

first learned the impact of books.

v

A dozen years of study would not have been possible were it not for the financial support I

received. Upon entrance into the PhD program, the University of Toronto awarded me an

Open Fellowship. Additionally, the Government of Ontario twice awarded me the Ontario

Graduate Scholarship. The Government of Canada likewise awarded me the generous

Canada Graduate Scholarship through the Social Sciences and Humanities Research

Council. This support helped my experience as a graduate student be a remarkably pleasant

affair.

Finally, I thank my mother Joy and my late father Theo. They have always been supportive

of my studies and continually provided me with a place of refuge away from university life.

With each passing year I recognize better how rare and blessed it is to have been raised in a

large family with a mother and father.

And to you, John of Kent, I hope to have honored your memory and that this dissertation

will be for the greater glory of God. It is not without fault, but I tried to follow your advice:

fac quod potes, a reliquo pete veniam.

vi

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements........................................................................................................................... iv

Table of Contents............................................................................................................................... vi

Abbreviations................................................................................................................................... viii

Chapter 1: Purpose of the present work.......................................................................................... 1

Chapter 2: Pastoralia in the thirteenth century............................................................................... 4

2.1 Pastoralia: definition and antecedents............................................................................. 4

2.2 The scholastic milieu........................................................................................................ 10

2.3 Lateran IV and the discipline of pastoral care............................................................. 24

Chapter 3: John of Kent and his Summa de penitencia.................................................................. 32

3.1 Authorship........................................................................................................................ 32

3.2 Biographical details.......................................................................................................... 34

3.3 The third book of the Summa........................................................................................... 45

3.4 Title and addressee.......................................................................................................... 46

3.5 Date of composition......................................................................................................... 48

3.6 Structure............................................................................................................................ 51

3.7 Sources............................................................................................................................... 55

Chapter 4: Introduction to the edition........................................................................................... 63

4.1 The textual witnesses....................................................................................................... 63

4.2 Manuscript descriptions.............................................................................................. 64

4.3 Notes on the manuscripts................................................................................................ 83

4.4 The missing allegationes................................................................................................... 87

4.5 Textual criticism............................................................................................................... 90

4.6 Editorial principles........................................................................................................... 93

Chapter 5: The Summa de penitencia................................................................................................ 99

5.1 Manuscript plates........................................................................................................... 100

5.2 Conspectus siglorum......................................................................................................... 105

vii

5.3 Abbreviationes et signa in apparatibus adhibita............................................................... 105

5.4 Prologus............................................................................................................................. 106

5.5 Liber primus...................................................................................................................... 107

5.6 Liber secundus.................................................................................................................. 151

5.7 Liber tercius...................................................................................................................... 198

Appendix A: Transcription of Emmanuel College MS 83, ff. 200r – 209v.............................. 240

Bibliography................................................................................................................................ 248

viii

Abbreviations

BMCL Bulletin of Medieval Canon Law

C&S Councils and synods, with other documents relating to the English Church. Edited by F.

M. Powicke and C. R. Cheney. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964.

CBMLC Corpus of British Medieval Library Catalogues

CCCM Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaevalis

CCSL Corpus Christianorum Series Latina

DEC Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils. Edited by N. Tanner. Washington: Georgetown

University Press, 1990.

HMCL The History of Medieval Canon Law in the Classical Period, 1140-1234: From Gratian to

the Decretals of Pope Gregory IX. Edited by W. Hartmann and K. Pennington.

Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 2008.

LMA Lexikon des Mittelalters. Munich: Artemis, 1977-.

Mansi Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio. Edited by G. D. Mansi. Venice,

1759.

ODNB Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Edited by H. C. G. Matthew and B.

Harrison. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 2004.

PL Patrologia latina. Edited by J.-P. Migne. Paris: 1844-55.

ZRG Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte. Kanonistische Abteilung

1

CHAPTER 1

The Purpose of the Present Work

John of Kent is best known for being part of the Anglo-Norman school of canon law. It was

on these grounds that Stephan Kuttner and other legal historians endeavored to discover all

that could be known of him.1 Additionally, his Summa de penitencia was first studied by

Father Leonard Boyle as an early pastoral manual connected to the reforms of Lateran IV.2

More recently, many scholars have consulted his Summa for a range of different issues, from

usury to medieval perceptions of women.3 There exists no edition of the Summa and thus far

scholars have been making the trek to the British Library to consult the manuscripts

preserved there, or sharing transcriptions amongst themselves. I intend to solve this

problem by making a critical edition available to the scholarly community for the first time.

The idea of creating a critical edition was first conceived by Professor Joseph Goering in the

1980s. It was he who discovered that John of Kent was the author of the previously

anonymous Summa de penitencia.4 Since John of Kent was already known to Kuttner and

others as a canonist, this discovery was a confirmation of Father Boyle’s insistence on the

importance of canon law in the pastoral life of the Church. It was also Professor Goering

1 S. Kuttner and E. Rathbone, “Anglo-Norman canonists of the twelfth century: an introductory

study.” Traditio 7 (1949-1951): 320, n. 43; See also HMCL, index: John of Kent. 2 L. Boyle, A study of the works attributed to William of Pagula with special reference to the Oculus

sacerdotis and Summa summarum, 2 vols., D. Phil dissertation (Oxford University, 1956), in vol. 2,

“Appendix: Summae of pastoral theology and Summae confessorum of English inspiration between

1200 and 1400,” 15. 3 For example O. Langholm, The merchant in the confessional (Brill: Boston, 2003), 2, 27, 31, 251; J.

Murray, “The absent penitent,” in Women, the book, and the godly, eds. L. Smith and J. Taylor

(Cambridge: Brewer, 1995), 18-19; J. Murray, “Gendered souls in sexed bodies,” in Handling sin:

confession in the Middle Ages, eds. P. Biller and A. J. Minnis (York: York Medieval Press, 1998), 85-91;

C. Rider, Magic and impotence in the Middle Ages (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 100; C.

Rider, “Women, men, and love magic in late medieval English pastoral manuals,” Magic, Ritual and

Witchcraft 7 (2012): 190-211; Lee, The purification of women after childbirth in medieval England, PhD

dissertation (University of Toronto, 1998), 93. 4 J. Goering, “The Summa de penitentia of John of Kent,” BMCL 18 (1988): 13–31.

2

who introduced me to John of Kent in 2014 with the suggestion I produce this critical

edition for my PhD dissertation. Thus, this edition is the fruit of three generations of

Toronto medievalists: Father Boyle, his student Joseph Goering, and finally myself.

This edition will be of special interest to social, theological, and legal historians. For those

studying the social life of medieval Europe, the third book of the Summa is the most

significant. It contains a hypothetical dialogue between priest and penitent. Through their

discussion a detailed picture emerges of how the author viewed the clergy and laity. The

priest is seen asking the penitent about numerous everyday topics, from intoxication to

witchcraft to marital relationships. Through this discourse many aspects of medieval life are

brought to the fore which are not commonly recorded in medieval texts.

John of Kent’s Summa was written when canon law and theology were not as distinct as

they would later become, and the Summa is a valuable witness to the close relationship

between the two disciplines. This aspect will be discussed more in chapter two.

Nonetheless, modern historians typically study the two disciplines separately. As such,

John of Kent is particularly important to historians of theology for his connection to the so-

called circle of Peter the Chanter at Paris. The Chanter is a revered authority in the Summa,

and John of Kent wrote entire sections dedicated to the Chanter’s views on simony and

usury. As will be explained, John of Kent also drew on Robert of Flamborough and

numerous other figures from the Chanter’s circle at Paris. Although John of Kent was

primarily a canonist, his Summa bears witness to the immense influence these Parisian

scholars had on schoolmen outside the discipline of theology.5

For legal historians, this edition will help scholars better understand the development and

diffusion of canonical learning. John of Kent’s Summa represented a significant effort at

5 For the most significant work on Peter the Chanter and his contemporaries, see J. Baldwin, Masters,

princes, and merchants: the social views of Peter the Chanter and his circle (Princeton: Princeton University

Press, 1970).

3

making canon law accessible to those who did not have access to a formal training in the

schools. However, the Summa de penitencia was not purely a work of popularization.

Throughout the Summa John of Kent engaged in his own legal reflection. By studying the

context in which the Summa was written, and who it was written for, an additional

perspective may be gained into the nature of legal teaching and development in the early

thirteenth century.

This study into the role of canon law in medieval society will be helped by a peculiar aspect

of the Summa’s manuscript tradition. All but one of the extant manuscripts contain a

recension of the text where the original allegationes (technical legal citations) have been

excised. This same excision of allegationes was done independently to other medieval texts,

which has recently begun to garner the attention of scholars. A similar case is described in

Mark Johnson’s study of the manuscript tradition of Paul of Hungary’s Summa.6 I have

devoted a sub-chapter (4.4) to exploring the issue further. The critical edition will present

the later recension which lacked the allegationes. Nonetheless, in order to facilitate further

study, I have included as an appendix a full transcription of the portions of the Emmanuel

College manuscript which contain the allegationes. This will enable close comparisons to be

made between the two recensions of the Summa.

6 M. Johnson, “Paul of Hungary’s Summa de penitentia,” in From Learning to love: schools, law, and

pastoral care in the Middle Ages: essays in honour of Joseph W. Goering, eds. T. Sharp et al. (Toronto:

Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2017), 402-18.

4

CHAPTER 2

John of Kent and Medieval Pastoralia

The purpose of this chapter is to provide a historical context in which the Summa de

penitencia, and pastoralia more generally, may be better appreciated. Two simple questions

will be asked of the Summa. What is it about? Why did John of Kent write it? By addressing

these questions, I will present the main outlines of the scholastic milieu and pastoral

reforms of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. I will begin with an introduction to the

genre of pastoralia, to which the Summa belongs. I will continue by exploring the Summa’s

relationship first to the disciplines of canon law and theology, and lastly to the discipline of

pastoral care.

2.1 PASTORALIA: DEFINITION AND ANTECEDENTS

The first modern scholar to notice the Summa de penitencia was Father Leonard Boyle in an

appendix to his doctoral dissertation.1 Boyle offered it as an example of a type of literature

he later called “pastoralia.” As Boyle defined it, pastoralia encompasses any manual, aid or

technique that helped the cleric to better understand and perform his duties, or enabled his

flock to respond better to his care.2 The various types of pastoralia are visually organized by

a chart Boyle designed and included in his initial articles on the subject. As seen there, the

1 L. Boyle, A study of the works attributed to William of Pagula with special reference to the Oculus sacerdotis

and Summa summarum, 2 vols. D. Phil dissertation (Oxford University, 1956), in vol. 2, “Appendix:

Summae of Pastoral Theology and Summae confessorum of English Inspiration between 1200 and

1400,” 15. 2 “In general one may term aids of this kind, whether theoretical or practical, Pastoralia – a very wide

term indeed, which, at its widest, embraces any and every manual, aid or technique, from an

episcopal directive to a mnemonic of the seven deadly sins, that would allow a priest the better to

understand his office, to instruct his people, and to administer the sacraments, or, indeed, would in

turn enable his people the readier to respond to his efforts in their behalf and to deepen their faith

and practice.” L. Boyle, “The inter-conciliar period: 1179-1215 and the beginnings of pastoral

manuals,” in Miscellanea Rolando Bandinelli Alessandro III, ed. F. Liotta (Siena: Accademia senese degli

intronati, 1986), 46.

5

variety is immense.3 These texts could be practical or theoretical, and ranged from short

mnemonic verses to saints’ lives to the vast summae of the schoolmen. This immense variety

is the effect of defining the genre by its function, not its contents or style. In the range of a

cleric’s pastoral duties nearly everything could, in some way, function as an aid in the cura

animarum.

Despite such a broad definition, scholars found Boyle’s category coherent and useful.4 The

pastoral reforms that culminated with Lateran IV produced an explosion of new texts.

Although these texts took a variety of forms, they were related in various ways to pastoral

care. Before this period, as Boyle supposed, a typical priest would not have owned anything

other than a psalter.5 After the pastoral reforms began, innumerable aides were developed

for clerics and laity to use and own. Modern scholars were aware of these texts before

Boyle, but it was Boyle’s scholarship that enabled them to be studied as a coherent whole.6

In practice, Boyle and his intellectual progeny did find it necessary to provide some

additional limits to the amorphous nature of the genre. This was not done by explicitly

redefining pastoralia, but by focusing on certain exemplary types. This signals a silent move

away from treating texts as pastoralia because they functioned as an aid in the care of souls,

and a move to treating them as pastoralia because they contained certain elements of

3 For a copy of the chart, see L. Boyle, “Summae confessorum,” in Les genres littéraires dans les sources

théologiques et philosophiques médiévales. Définition, critique et exploitation. Actes du Colloque international

de Louvain-la-Neuve, 25-27 mai 1981 (Leuven: Catholic University of Leuven, 1982), 231. 4 See J. Goering, “Leonard E. Boyle and the invention of pastoralia,” in A companion to pastoral care in

the late Middle Ages: 1200 – 1500, ed. R. J. Stansbury (Boston: Brill, 2010), 7-20. See also the various

essays in the same volume which address the literature of pastoral care. 5 Boyle, “The inter-conciliar period 1179-1215,” 45. 6 There remains some ambivalence towards the term pastoralia as such, which has not been adopted

universally. Many scholars prefer to speak of “the literature of pastoral care.” This is, in part, because

the phrase requires no explanation to non-specialists, which the term pastoralia does. It also avoids

the question of whether all pastoralia constitutes a literary genre in a technical sense. Regardless,

that phrase is typically used synonymously with pastoralia. See Klepper’s use of the phrase in

“Pastoral literature in local context: Albert of Diessen’s Mirror of Priests on Christian-Jewish

coexistence,” Speculum 93 (3): 2017, 692-723.

6

content and style. Joseph Goering outlined the most important elements of content and

style in his chapter on pastoralia in Rigg and Mantello’s voluminous Medieval Latin:

Introduction and Bibliographical Guide.7 The first aspect Goering noted is a simple and

straightforward style of Latin. This style was used because the texts were usually for clerics

who had little formal education. Another aspect is a general focus on three themes of

pastoral care: preaching, confession and ecclesiastical discipline. These correspond to the

most important areas of pastoral care under development during that period. A final aspect

is that, whatever the form, pastoralia usually focused on specific matters such as virtues

and vices, sacraments, creeds and so forth. Numerous mnemonic devices and

organizational techniques were employed to assist the reader in the comprehension and

retention of these materials.

This description had the result of regarding the manuals as the best example of pastoralia.

Other texts which fell under Boyle’s original definition, such as lives of the saints, are not

generally regarded as prime examples of the genre. This should not be seen as a departure

from Boyle’s intention. After Boyle offered the general definition given above, he too

quickly moved to a focused examination of the manuals, a focus that remained in his

subsequent articles. As such, the examples offered by Boyle and Goering as emblematic of

pastoralia are manuals like Thomas Chobham’s Summa confessorum, Robert of

Flamborough’s Liber poenitentialis and Raymond of Penyafort’s Summa de casibus

poenitentiae.8 I will add here John of Kent’s Summa de penitencia. Although pastoralia should

not be limited to these manuals, it is the manuals that form the core of the literary genre.

7 J. Goering, “Pastoralia: the popular literature of the care of souls” in Medieval Latin: Introduction and

bibliographical guide, eds. F. A. C. Mantello and A. G. Rigg (Washington: Catholic University of

America Press, 1996), 670-6. 8 Thomas of Chobham, Summa confessorum, ed. F. Broomfield (Louvain: Éditions Nauwelaerts,

1968); Robert of Flamborough, Liber poenitentialis, ed. F. J. J. Firth (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of

Mediaeval Studies, 1971); Raymond of Penyafort, Summa de penitentia, eds. X. Ochoa and A. Diez

(Farnborough, England: Gregg, 1967).

7

Regarding the antecedents to pastoralia, there were several earlier types of literature that set

a foundation for the genre. In the early centuries of the Church, there was Saint Augustine’s

De fide Christiana and the homiletic tradition of Saint Gregory the Great and other Church

fathers.9 There were also the liturgical ordines which structured the Church’s sacramental

life, particularly the ordines dealing with penance.10 However, there is no straight line of

development between these theological or liturgical texts and the pastoral manuals of the

High Middle Ages. For a direct precedent, one must look to the Celtic penitential canons

and early collections of canon law.

Historians of medieval penance typically point to two significant points of change, the sixth

and twelfth centuries.11 The twelfth century will be addressed later. The sixth century,

which saw the rise of private penance first among the Celts, gave birth to a slew of

penitential canons, often called tariffs. These Celtic manuals were largely comprised of lists

of sins accompanied by corresponding lists of penances to be assigned.12 Over the centuries,

due to the movement of missionaries from the British Isles, the Celtic manuals spread across

the European continent and influenced penitential practices there. The penitential canons

were somewhat controversial during the Carolingian period, but they survived this and

continued to thrive.13

9 For these and other early examples, see Goering, “Pastoralia: the popular literature of the care of

souls,” 675; see also Boyle, “The inter-conciliar period 1179-1215,” 46. 10 For an overview of the liturgical ordines, see C. Vogel, Medieval Liturgy: An introduction to the

sources, trans. and rev. W. Storey and N. Rasmussen (Washington: Pastoral Press, 1986), 188-90. 11 For an overview of the historiography, see R. Meens, Penance in medieval Europe, 600 – 1200

(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 1-36. 12 For a collection of the most famous penitential manuals, see L. Bieler, ed., The Irish penitentials

(Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, 1963). 13 Some attempts were made by the Carolingians towards a re-focus on public penance. Public

penance had never been completely replaced, and there was still much diversity of penitential

practices across Europe. For example, the council of Arles in 813 decreed that public crime should be

judged in public, with a public penance assigned. In that same year the council of Chalon-sur-Saône

went further and condemned the handbooks, stating that “we should repudiate and eliminate totally

those booklets which they call ‘penitentials’, of which the errors are as certain as the authors are

uncertain.” Several years later the council of Paris in 829 ordered the handbooks burned. Despite

these attempts at regulation the penitential handbooks remained in use, and the period produced

8

In the tenth and eleventh centuries, these penitential canons were often grouped together

with collections of canon law. Burchard of Worms’ Decretum is one of the most significant.

This is a twenty-book collection of canon law composed in the early eleventh century. Most

of the books deal with canon law unrelated to the penitential canons. Book nineteen, which

often goes by its own name, Corrector siue medicus, is a penitential guide which reproduces

many of the tariffs.14 Anselm of Lucca’s Collectio canonum and Ivo of Chartres’s Decretum are

of similar importance. Anselm composed his canon law collection in the late eleventh

century and drew heavily upon Burchard. He likewise had a section devoted to penance,

book eleven.15 Ivo, also writing in the late eleventh century, devoted book fifteen of his

work to penance. Numerous parts of his book were taken wholesale from Burchard’s

Decretum.16

The most important canon law collection was Gratian’s Decretum. The unique nature of

Gratian’s textbook is well known, although often misunderstood.17 Gratian sought to

produce a harmony between the various canons. This was done partly through

organization, partly through adding his own dicta on how discordant canons could be

harmonized.18 Its influence on John of Kent and future pastoralia was immense. Much of

new handbooks also. For an overview of these events, see Meens, Penance in Medieval Europe 600 –

1200, 101-39. 14 Körntgen believed that book 19 of Burchard’s Decretum was not a conventional penitential but was

intended to be an exemplary penitential and a summary of the preceding 18 books. See L. Körntgen,

“Canon law and the practice of penance: Burchard of Worms’ penitential.” Early Medieval Europe 14

(2006): 103–17. 15 K. Cushing, Papacy and law in the Gregorian revolution. The canonistic work of Anselm of Lucca (Oxford:

Oxford University Press, 1998). For an edition of the text, see Anselm of Lucca, Collectio canonum, ed.

F. Thaner (Innsbruck, 1906. Repr.: Aalen, 1965). 16 The prologue only has been published in a critical edition. See Ivo of Chartres in B. Brasington,

Ways of mercy: the prologue of Ivo of Chartres, edition and analysis (Münster: LIT, 2004). 17 The scholarly community eagerly awaits the forthcoming publication of Giulio Silano’s translation

and introduction to the Decretum and Glossa ordinaria. 18 Rufinus conceived of Gratian’s approach in this way: “Denique cum auctore Deo ecclesia cresceret

gradusque in ea disponerentur et ordines et tam in eis discernendis quam in litibus inter

ecclesiasticas personas provenientibus sedandis euangelium sufficere non videretur, tam ab apostolis

quam ab eorum vicariis nec non ceteris ecclesie ministris multa sunt addita, que, licet multimode in

specie appellentur, uno tamen generali vocabulo nuncupantur: quod est canones. Que omnia

9

Gratian’s material came from earlier collections like those of Ivo and Anselm.19 As in

Burchard, Ivo and Anselm, Gratian devoted a section specifically to penance, the De

penitentia found at the end of Causa 33. A few of the older tariffs were listed here, but they

do not comprise a major part of the text.

In the wake of Gratian’s Decretum, Bartholomew of Exeter wrote his Penitentiale.20

Bartholomew (d. 1184) was bishop of Exeter and trained in canon law. His Penitentiale is

largely a collection of various canons of Church councils, quotations of Church Fathers and

a few of the older penitential tariffs. It frequently draws from Ivo and Burchard, and makes

extensive use of Gratian. The Penitentiale is on the border between older canonical

collections and the new manuals of pastoralia. It is, as Boyle said, a manual cast in the “old

mould.”21 It became a source for manuals cast in the new mould. At some point in his career

Bartholomew taught canon law at Paris before becoming bishop of Exeter.22 However, it

was not among his canonical circle at Paris that Boyle’s new form of pastoralia was born,

but, as will be described below, among the theological circle of Peter the Chanter.

One final significant antecedent to John of Kent and pastoralia bears mention. Through the

Decretum another text was immortalized, De vera et falsa penitentia.23 The medieval

schoolmen attributed this text to Augustine, but it was likely written in the eleventh

century. In De vera et falsa penitentia, one sees a move away from the older tariffs and

towards an emphasis on the circumstances of sin and the discretionary power of the

Gratianus in hoc libro materiam sui operis assumit. Intentio autem eius est canones in quam pluribus

locis vage passimque dispersos ordinata quidem dispositione componere et eorum contrarietates

interiectis distinctionibus unire.” See Rufinus, Summa decretorum, ed. H. Singer (Paderborn, 1902.

Repr.: Aalen and Paderborn, 1963), 4-5. 19 For an overview of Gratian’s sources, see A. Winroth, The making of Gratian’s Decretum (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 2000). 20 Bartholomew of Exeter, Liber poenitentialis, ed. D. Morey in Bartholomew of Exeter, Bishop and

canonist. A study in the twelfth century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1937), 161-300. 21 Boyle, “The inter-conciliar period 1179-1215,” 47. 22 Weigand, “The Transmontane Decretists,” in HMCL, 174-5. 23 For an overview and edition of the text, see the K. Wagner, De vera et falsa penitentia: An edition and

study, PhD dissertation (University of Toronto, 1995).

10

confessor, here conceived of as a judge. This development was integral to the birth of

pastoralia. John of Kent quotes from this text (via the Decretum) is his opening to the Summa:

Let the spiritual judge take care, that just as he does not commit the crime of

wickedness, so also let him not lack the gift of knowledge. It is fitting that he know

how to recognize what he ought to judge. For this judiciary power demands that he

discern what he ought to judge. Therefore let him, as a diligent inquisitor and subtle

investigator, wisely and astutely question the sinner regarding those things which

the sinner is perhaps unaware of, or wishes to hide on account of shame.24

John of Kent did not entirely reject the older penitential tariffs in favor of this new emphasis

on the confessor’s discretionary power. As such, he included several of the older tariffs

dealing with priests who handle the Eucharist improperly.25 John of Kent stated his general

view of the tariffs when discussing how to assign penances. He believed that confessors

should indicate what the older tariffs demanded, but not necessarily assign them. The

tariffs were useful for inspiration but not to be assigned mechanically. In the end, the

assigned penance should be made according to the judgement (arbitrium) of the confessor

after having considered the circumstances of the sin.26

2.2 THE SCHOLASTIC MILIEU

The development of pastoralia from the older Celtic manuals and canonical collections was

intimately connected with the scholastic milieu of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.27 A

casual read through the Summa confirms this. Most of its content is taken from the

24 John of Kent, Summa, 1.40-4. John knew the text from D.6 De pen. c.1. Gratian knew the text from

the (pseudo) Augustine passage which is edited in Wagner, De vera et falsa penitentia, 265. Passages

from John of Kent’s Summa will henceforth be referenced by book number followed by line numbers. 25 John of Kent, Summa, 1.1001-1026. This is taken from D.1 De con. d.p. c.27. 26 John of Kent, Summa, 3.950–4. It is not clear how different this was from how the penitential tariffs

were originally used. It is doubtful that they were ever applied purely mechanically, and there was

already an intention that they be assigned in a “pastoral” way. For a discussion about these matters,

see Meens, Penance in medieval Europe: 600-1200, 45-69. 27 For an overview of the scholastic milieu in which new penitential practices emerged, see J.

Goering, “The scholastic turn (1100-1500): penitential theology and law in the schools,” in A new

history of penance, ed. A. Firey, 219-238 (Leiden: Brill, 2008).

11

schoolmen, particularly those trained at Bologna and Paris.28 I will focus first on its

relationship to the discipline of canon law. As John of Kent’s stated in the prologue, nearly

everything in the Summa is confirmed in the decrees or decretals, both new and old, or the

sententiae of the highest doctors in that faculty. I will focus second on the Summa’s

theological content, which often came from Parisian schoolmen, particularly Peter the

Chanter and Robert of Flamborough.

Before addressing the relationship of the Summa to the disciplines of canon law and

theology, a qualification is demanded. Unlike medieval schoolmen, scholars today are wary

of making distinctions. They are quick to point out the lack of borders between the

disciplines of theology and canon law, especially in the century previous to John of Kent

when the fields were not fully institutionalized with their own set of established curricula

and methodology.29 As such, when John of Kent stated in his prologue that he would draw

from the highest doctors of the faculty (facultas) of canon law, he was not referring to a

distinct university ‘faculty’ in the technical sense. In the twelfth and early thirteenth

centuries the word referred more generally to an emerging intellectual discipline. In the

Summa Elegantius (1169), for example, facultas designated the general discipline of canon

28 In Boyle’s articles on pastoralia, he frequently indicated the importance of the new literary genres

being invented in the schools such as quaestiones, distinctiones, summae, notabilia and brocarda. See L.

Boyle, “The inter-conciliar period 1179-1215,” 55-6; “The Fourth Lateran Council and manuals of

popular theology,” 33. 29 For an example of this wariness, see Atria Larson’s essay on these matters, “The reception of

Gratian’s Tractatus de penitentia and the relationship between canon law and theology in the second

half of the twelfth century,” Journal of Religious History 37 (2013): 457-73. See also van Engen, “From

practical theology to divine law: the work and mind of medieval canonists,” in Proceedings of the ninth

international congress of medieval canon law, Munich, July 13-18, 1992, ed. P. Landau and J. Mueller, 873-

96 (Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1997). It was the claim of Mews that “theology and

canon law emerged as fully distinct disciplines only in the thirteenth century as the result of the

institutional organisation of the University of Paris, in which theology and canon law were defined

as separate disciplines.” C. J. Mews, “Law, theology, and praxis ca. 1140-1380: new approaches to the

study of law and theology in medieval Europe,” Journal of Religious History 37 (2013): 436.

12

law.30 Only by 1220 would it begin to designate a corporate body with a distinct curriculum,

examinations and certification.31

Both before and after this institutionalization, schoolmen like John of Kent constantly

drew from their counterparts in the other facultas. Recent scholarship has emphasized how

much Gratian’s Decretum drew from theological texts,32 and that Gratian himself can be

considered a “practical theologian.”33 Likewise, Peter Lombard’s Sentences has been

fruitfully compared to a legal casebook.34 The canones in the first textbook bear a striking

resemblance to the sententiae in the latter. However, this point about the overlap between

theology and canon law was obvious to medieval people. According to legend, Gratian and

Lombard were brothers, not strangers.35 But as they were brothers, they were also not the

same person. John of Kent knew theology and canon law were different, but related. While

he did not speak of canonists as such, he distinguished between views which were

secundum theologos and those which were secundum canones or ex decretis/decretalibus. Thus,

while the following sections deal with canon law and theology separately, this is only

partially a modern heuristic. It is also a useful distinction made by John of Kent.

30 Summa ‘Elegantius in iure diuino’ seu Coloniensis, eds. G. Fransen and S. Kuttner (New York:

Fordham University Press, 1969), 4:136. 31 J. A. Brundage, The medieval origins of the legal profession: canonists, civilians, and courts (Chicago:

University of Chicago Press, 2008), 174; 226, n. 26; 246, n.102. Gilbert of Poitiers (d. 1142) was one of

the first to use the word facultas in the sense of a scientific discipline. See M. Asztalos, “The faculty of

theology,” in A history of the university in Europe, ed. H. De Ridder-Symoens, vol. 1 (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press), 411. 32 Winroth believed that “Gratian was a legal scholar with a strong theological bent.” See A. Winroth,

“Neither slave nor free: theology and law in Gratian’s thoughts on the definition of marriage and

unfree persons,” in Medieval church law and the origins of the Western legal tradition: a tribute to Kenneth

Pennington, eds. W. Müller and M. Sommar (Washington: Catholic University of America Press,

2006), 97. 33 van Engen, “From practical theology to divine law: the work and mind of medieval canonists,” 882. 34 See Silano’s introduction in The Sentences of Peter of Lombard. Book 1 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of

Mediaeval Studies, 2007), ix-xxx. See also van Engen, “From practical theology to divine law: the

work and mind of medieval canonists,” 882, 894. 35 Silano, The Sentences of Peter of Lombard: Book 1, 1.

13

The discipline of canon law

Insofar as the salvation of souls is the highest law, all canon law can be considered

pastoralia in a broad sense, as helping priests in the cura animarum. It is important to make

the point initially, for pastoralia in the restricted sense described above has a more natural

connection to canon law than to theology.36 This will become evident after briefly surveying

the prime examples of the genre, and then specifically John of Kent’s Summa.

In the centuries following John of Kent, most of the prominent manuals, though certainly

not all, were authored by clerics trained in canon law. A few examples will suffice. The

most famous is Raymond of Penyafort’s Summa de casibus poenitentiae. Raymond, a

Dominican and the patron saint of canon lawyers, finished the first part of his manual c.

1225. His manual was widely known throughout the Middle Ages and is considered a

paragon of medieval pastoralia. William of Rennes wrote an apparatus soon after, although

later editions gave the credit to John of Freiburg.37 John of God, another Bolognese canonist

and prolific author, wrote his Liber pastoralis and Liber penitentiarius in the mid-thirteenth

century.38 John of Erfurt, a Franciscan canonist, finished his Summa de penitentia in c. 1295.

When the Liber sextus was published in 1298, he found that recent legislation necessitated an

update of the Summa, which he completed a revised version of in 1302.39 To close off the

thirteenth century is John of Freiburg’s Summa confessorum, which enjoyed enormous

36 This is why Hostiensis argued that canon law is the ars artium, the same phrase used by Lateran IV

when describing the governance of souls (regimen animarum ars artium). “Est igitur hec nostra scientia

non pure theologica; siue civilis; sed utrique participans nomen proprium sortita canonica vocatur;

sicut ius emphyteoticum non est venditio nec locatio sed contractus per se utrique participans, C. de

iure emphy. l.i. et de hac legitur xxxi. di. Nicena, et hec nostra lex siue scientia vere potest

scientiarum scientia nuncupari, infra de eta. et quali. Cum sit ars artium.” Hostiensis, Summa aurea

(Venice, 1574), proemium. 37 Raymond of Penyafort was a trained as canonist and taught canon law at Bologna. He was

appointed by Pope Gregory IX’s to form the Liber extra which was promulgated in 1234. He assumed

the Dominican habit in 1222 and was later elected master-general of the Dominican Order from 1238-

1240. 38 The later manual was composed of seven books, the second of which contained a list of the older

penitential canons. Unlike many canonists of this period, John of God was a secular rather than

religious cleric. See N. Höhl, ‘Johannes de Deo,’ LMA 4 (1990), 569. 39 Die Summa confessorum des Johannes von Erfurt, ed. N. Brieskorn, 3 vols. (Frankfurt: Lang, 1980).

14

popularity over the coming centuries.40 John, a Dominican like Raymond, was trained in

both theology and canon law and drew from both disciplines. However, his most important

sources were canonical, and his manual is essentially an updated version of Raymond’s

Summa.

The following centuries continued to see a wealth of manuals from people trained in canon

law. In 1317 Astesanus de Asti, a Franciscan canonist, finished his Summa de casibus.41

Around 1330 John of Bromyard, an English Dominican, wrote his manual on confession, the

Opus trivium, which incorporated a wealth of canon law. This was later revised it into a

Summa predicantium in c. 1348.42 The fourteenth century produced William of Pagula (d.

1332), who received a doctorate in canon law from Oxford, and whose numerous works

first inspired Boyle’s studies of pastoralia.43 In the fifteenth century, the most notable

manuals are Antonin of Florence’s Summa theologica moralis and Angelo Carletti’s Summa

angelica, a manual based on John of Freiburg’s Summa.44 Angelo was trained in Bologna as a

doctor of both laws. His manual was immensely popular and went through thirty-one

editions.45 Martin Luther knew of it, and saw fit to cast it into the fire alongside the books of

canon law.46

40 John of Freiburg, Summa confessorum (Lyons: 1518). See also Boyle, “The Summa confessorum of John

of Freiburg and the popularization of the moral teaching of St. Thomas and some of his

contemporaries,” in St. Thomas Aquinas 1274–1974: Commemorative studies (Toronto: Pontifical

Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1974), 2.245-68. 41 Astesanus de Asti, Summa de casibus conscientiae (Rome: 1728). 42 See L. Boyle, “The date of the Summa praedicantium of John Bromyard,” Speculum 48 (1973): 533–37. 43 See L. Boyle, “The Oculus sacerdotis and some other works of William of Pagula,” and “The Summa

summarum,” in Pastoral care, clerical education and canon law, 1200 – 1400 (London: Variorum Reprints,

1981). 44 Saint Antonin wrote his Summa theologica moralis shortly before his death in 1459, which enjoyed

enormous popularity. While its theological content is typically emphasized, hence its title, its

juridical elements were so well developed that it was also published under the alternate title Summa

sacrae theologiae, iuris pontificii, et caesarei (Venice, 1571). For a recent analysis of several of the legal

portions of Antonin’s Summa, see Jason Aaron Brown, St Antonin of Florence on Justice in Buying and

Selling: Introduction, Critical Edition, and Translation, PhD dissertation (University of Toronto, 2018). 45 See for example Angelo Carletti, Summa angelica (Strasbourg: 1515). 46 M. Brecht, Martin Luther, trans. J. Schaaf (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1993), 424.

15

These manuals were all in the future. The more complicated story about the Parisian

manuals directly preceding John of Kent will be told later. First, it is fitting to explore

generally the relationship between John of Kent’s Summa and the discipline of canon law.

This can be done through recalling and examining a distinction Schulte made when he

published his Geschichte der Quellen und Literatur des canonishen Rechts in the late nineteenth

century. As a means of organization, Schulte divided his second volume of canonical

sources into two parts. The first part consisted of what he called purely juridical works. The

second consisted of authors who wrote for the internal forum and provided an academic

analysis of practical matters.47 If Schulte had included John of Kent’s Summa, he would have

placed it in the latter category.48 All the manuals listed above which Schulte did know of,

such as those by Penyafort and Freiburg, were likewise placed in the latter category.

Herein lies the problem. Schulte’s distinction between purely juridical works and those

dealing with practical matters—for the purposes here, between the ‘pure’ discipline of

canon law and pastoral manuals—is still the rough framework in which manuals are

usually conceived. However, this distinction conceals a notable aspect of John of Kent’s

Summa. That is, if John of Kent’s Summa consisted of its first two books only, which it does

in some manuscripts, it would not belong in Schulte’s latter category. Apart from the first

chapters, books one and two are often highly technical, although written in simple Latin,

and could be considered a commentary on canon law. This is especially true of the first

47 “Eine Sonderung nach dem gewählten Gesichtspunkte der eigentlichen reinen Juristen und der

Schriftsteller für das forum internum liegt hingegen nahe. Die Schriftsteller, welche ihre

Haupthätigkeit auf dem Gebiete der jurisdictio pro foro interno haben, sind zwar darum keineswegs

nothwendig weniger Juristen, aber ihre Aufgabe zwang sie neben den rechtlichen Gesichtspunkten

andere anzuerkennen. Es bildet in der That diese Beichtstuhlsjurisprudenz eine eigene Klasse, welche

nicht blos wegen ihres grossen Einflusses in der Kirche und in der Gesellschaft überhaupt von

Bedeutung ist, sondern aus der juristischen Literatur des Mittelalters gar nicht ausgeschieden

werden kann. In dem dritten Kapitel der zweiten Abtheilung habe ich versucht, über die Literatur

der in diesem Bande behandelten Periode (1234-1563), sodann über die gesammte des ganzen

Mittelalters einen Ueberblick zu geben.” J. F. Schulte, Geschichte der Quellen und Literatur des

canonishen Rechts, 2 vols. (Stuttgart, 1875; repr. 1956), vol. 2, pg. v. 48 Strictly speaking John of Kent’s Summa was a written a few years before the purview of Schulte’s

second volume (1234-1562).

16

recension which included the original allegationes (in-text legal citations). Books one and two

are not structured as an apparatus to any existing legal collections, but the material is often

taken whole cloth from the apparatus of professional jurists or from the Decretum and

decretal letters. By themselves, the first two books appear to be written by a canonist, about

canon law, and for people studying canon law. This observation is confirmed by at least one

medieval cataloguer who did not consider the work a Summa de penitencia. He thought the

manual was better described by the more ‘purely juridical’ title Summa de decretis.49

It is the prologue and third book that alter how the first two books are read. In the prologue,

John of Kent explained how books one and two will focus on matters pertaining to the

clergy and laity, respectively. The third book will then treat the way confessors should

interrogate the penitent, which penances should be applied to which sin, and various other

matters. The third book presupposes the material in books one and two. Through the

priest/penitent dialogue, John of Kent provided a space where the knowledge gained in the

first two books could be applied in the confessional. In this regard, the organization of the

previous books has a new significance. Although individual blocks of text are the same as

those found in the apparatus of professional canonists, the organization of them, particularly

into clerical and lay topics, indicates a different purpose. As such, John of Kent’s Summa no

longer seems intended for students of canon law, but rather for clerics exercising the cura

animarum.

Given that, in the final count, the complete Summa does include the prologue and third

book, can it be concluded that it still falls within Schulte’s latter category? Not without

qualification. The manuscript tradition confirms this ambivalence. In the first place, there is

the intriguing issue of the allegationes removed from the first two books.50 This raises the

possibility that John of Kent was initially writing a technical work that would fall within

49 It is unknown whether this copy of the Summa contained the whole text or only the first two books.

See below, chapter 3.1-2. 50 See below, chapter 4.4.

17

Schulte’s first category. He or a later scribe then decided to alter the text and use it for a

different purpose. In this view the Summa, or at least the first two books, was first written as

a juridical text belonging in Schulte’s first category, and then repurposed such that it now

belongs in the latter category. Additionally, the manuscript tradition tells still another story.

For there is a third version of the text which survives in two manuscripts. This version lacks

the allegationes, but it also lacks the prologue and third book. Thus, while it is simplified by

the absence of allegationes, it does not have the benefit of the prologue and third book to

transform it into an obvious confessor’s manual. It was perhaps this version of the text that

the above-mentioned medieval cataloguer called a Summa de decretis. Regardless, at many

levels John of Kent’s Summa floats between Schulte’s two categories of strictly juridical texts

and those designed to directly assist in the cura animarum.

An objection is in order, namely that Schulte’s categories still reflect a reality of medieval

legal texts. That is, there were indeed strictly juridical texts studied and commented on

within the classroom and scholarly community, or used in the external forum of

ecclesiastical courts. Conversely, there were texts explicitly meant for other reasons, to assist

less-educated priests in the cura animarum. In the prefaces of some manuals the authors

state as much, that they wrote them “for the informing of simple priests.”51 Nonetheless,

what John of Kent’s Summa points to is that there is no strict line between these two types.

The same juridical text could be read and studied in the halls of Bologna while at the same

time put to use in the service of the cura animarum. This is also the case with other known

texts of pastoralia. Raymond of Penyafort’s Summa was a manual to assist in the cura

animarum while at the same time it was studied and glossed by professional canonists. So

too Gratian’s Decretum, which was the foundational textbook of the discipline of canon law

and was also widely used to assist preachers and pastors in the cura animarum.

51 “Ad informationem simplicium sacerdotum.” See Boyle, “The Summa for confessors,” 128.

18

As a final word, two salient points emerge regarding the discipline of canon law and John

of Kent’s Summa. These points can be generally extended to other manuals of pastoralia.

This first is that the manuals should not be viewed simply as derivative, as popularizations

of scholastic texts. As such, pastoralia was not only a product of the scholastic milieu, but

part of its core. Similar mindsets created both the manuals and Schulte’s strictly juridical

texts. Additionally, there was a symbiotic relationship between each of Schulte’s categories.

Pastoralia indeed took much of its material from the strictly juridical texts of the schoolmen.

However, these strictly juridical texts were in turn dependent on pastoral care to provide

the initial questions to be addressed. The decretal law that John of Kent continually draws

from is a prime example. For the decretals, the practice of pastoral care created an initial

situation of conflict. This situation was put before the pope for a decision. The pope’s

decision was then organized, studied and commented on by the professional jurists. This

commentary was then transposed by writers like John of Kent into a form more suitable for

those engaged in the cura animarum. At this point the cycle continued, with the newly

informed practice of pastoral care creating a new situation of conflict to be settled by the

pope and analyzed by the jurists.52

The discipline of theology

When reviewing the manuals written by canonists after John of Kent, I mentioned those

directly preceding him were of a different sort. They were not written by trained canonists,

but by clerics trained primarily in the discipline of theology. In the inter-conciliar period

between the Third Lateran Council of 1179 and the Fourth of 1215, it was Parisian

theologians who authored the most famous manuals.

52 It was not only jurists who were dependent on the practice of pastoral care to provide them with

the initial questions to be analyzed. By extension, the impetus for the creation of the law schools

themselves was often to resolve conflicts occurring in society, rather than the initial impetus being

scholastic curiosity and speculation. This can be seen notably in the case of legal teaching at Oxford,

which arose first because that town was already the seat of operating courts. See L. Boyle, “The

beginnings of legal studies at Oxford,” Viator 14 (1983): 108.

19

At Paris there was, according to John Baldwin, a group of influential theologians centered

around Peter the Chanter.53 Whether the Chanter was a central figure of this group can be

disputed, but he was certainly of great importance to John of Kent. One of the

characteristics of these theologians was that they were less interested in metaphysics or

speculative theology, and more interested in practical morality and the sacraments,

especially the sacrament of penance.54 Several times John of Kent adopted material from the

Chanter’s own Summa de sacramentis et animae consiliis, the title of which concisely

summarizes the preoccupations of these theologians.

From this focus on morality and the sacraments, it is not surprising to find these Parisian

theologians were apt to compose manuals to assist priests in the cura animarum. Some of

them spent their careers studying and teaching in the famed city. Others returned to their

native lands, spreading the influence of Parisian thought abroad. Many of them were

directly involved in the cura animarum, whether in Paris at the Abbey of Saint Victor, or in

their homelands upon their return.

Among these schoolmen is Alan of Lille (d. 1203), who composed the Liber poenitentialis.55

Alan studied and taught at Paris, and composed several other works of theology and the

Ars praedicandi, a tract on preaching.56 In 1207, Robert Courson wrote his Summa, another

early manual on penance. Robert was particularly concerned with helping the unlettered

clergy who were “hammering at the gates of theology for solid food.”57 Robert was a

student of Peter the Chanter and later taught at Paris. He presided over the councils of Paris

53 For a general depiction of this group of scholars, see J. Baldwin, Masters, princes and merchants: the

social views of Peter the Chanter and his circle (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1970). 54 Ibid., 49-53. 55 Alan of Lille, Liber poenitentialis, ed. J. Longere (Louvain: Éditions Nauwelaerts, 1965). 56 Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages, ed. A. Vauchez et al. (Cambridge: James Clarke, 2000), v. Alan of

Lille. 57 “... ad teneram rudium erudiendam infantiam qui tanquam adhuc edentuli ad hostium pulsant

theologiae et ad cibum solidiorem provectiorum frugalius percipiendum, quaestiones morales et tam

de fide quam de ceteris virtutibus institutas pro posse nostro deo annuente prosequemur.” V. L.

Kennedy, “Robert Courson on Penance,” Mediaeval Studies 7 (1945): 294.

20

(1213) and Rouen (1214) mentioned in John of Kent’ Summa. William de Montibus was also

at Paris and studied there under Peter Comestor in the 1160s. Upon his return to England,

he lectured at the cathedral school in Lincoln and authored numerous texts of pastoralia. 58

Robert of Flamborough, another Englishman, travelled to Paris.59 He remained at Paris and

served as canon penitentiary at the Abbey of Saint Victor. His Liber poenitentialis was

finished by 1213. A few years later Peter of Poitiers, also a canon of Saint-Victor, wrote his

own Liber poenitentialis to be used by members of that order.60 Finally, mention must be

made of Thomas Chobham, who studied at Paris in 1180s, possibly under Peter the

Chanter. He wrote an immense Summa confessorum which was especially popular over the

coming decades.61

Of these Parisian scholars, Peter the Chanter and Robert of Flamborough were the most

important to John of Kent. A full chapter of John of Kent’s Summa is dedicated to the

Chanter’s views on simony.62 A later chapter on usury is also dedicated to the views of “the

theologians,” which consists mostly of the Chanter’s views. Robert of Flamborough’s

manual is used as a material source throughout the first two books of the Summa, but never

cited by name.

In sum, how much of John of Kent’s Summa is indebted to the discipline of theology? The

question is not easily answered, and not only because of the qualification earlier made

58 There are many texts by William of Montibus that can be considered pastoralia. See J. Goering, ed.,

William de Montibus, De penitentia religiosorum, in William de Montibus: The Schools and the

Literature of Pastoral Care (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1992). 59 It is not known for sure where Robert of Flamborough obtained his education, but it was likely at

the University of Paris. See J. J. F. Firth, ed., Robert of Flamborough, Liber poenitentialis (Toronto:

Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1971), 3. 60 Peter of Poitiers, <Liber poenitentialis> Compilatio praesens, ed. J. Longére, CCCM 51. This is a

different man than the Peter of Poitiers who authored the Sententiarum libri quinque. The author of the

Liber poenitentialis was probably a student of Peter Lombard and chancellor of the University Paris

from 1193 till his death in 1215. See Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages, v. Peter of Poitiers. 61 Thomas of Chobham, Summa confessorum, ed. F. Broomfield (Louvain: Éditions Nauwelaerts, 1968). 62 From the various works by Peter the Chanter, it is the Summa de sacramentiis, rather than the

Verbum abbreviatum, that John of Kent draws from. See chapter 3.7 for more details.

21

regarding the intimate relationship between theology and canon law. Even when the two

disciplines were more strictly defined in the following centuries, there remained significant

overlap. Pastoralia by its very nature lies within this overlap. It is not typically concerned

with purely canonical matters, such as the niceties of legal procedure. Nor is it typically

concerned with delving into matters of speculative theology. However, while a majority of

the Summa’s material is of the sort addressed by both theology and canon law, the question

can be posed another way. How much of the material comes directly from theologians?

John of Kent does not always name his sources, but it is generally indicated whether the

material is taken from the theologians (secundum theologos) or canon law (secundum

canones/ex decretis/ex decretalibus). In this framework, only a minor part of the Summa is

directly indebted to the theologians.

There are three subjects regarding which John of Kent explicitly gives the views of the

theologians: vows, usury and simony. Generally, the views of various canonists are given

first, and then supplemented by those of the theologians. In the case of vows, there is no

chapter specifically dedicated to their views, only several interspersed lines.63 These occur

in the section regarding conditional vows to enter religious life. John of Kent offers the

views of several unnamed theologians before returning to his regular sources of canon law,

in this case Tancred of Bologna. In the case of usury, an entire chapter is dedicated to the

theologians’ views on the subject.64 The first theologian cited is Peter the Chanter. His views

are brought forward to resolve whether various intricate situations constitute usury.

Further in the chapter John of Kent presents the views of other unnamed theologians. He

finishes the chapter by returning to the views of two canonists, Albertus and Gerald

Pucelle.65

63 John of Kent, Summa, 2.644-50. 64 Ibid., 2, ch. 22. 65 It is possible, but unlikely, that John of Kent considered these two men theologos. Gerald taught

both theology and canon law and produced various glosses on the Decretum. Albertus was certainly

a canonist, the author of an apparatus to the Compilatio secunda. In my estimation, John of Kent would

not have regarded them as theologos. Despite being included in the same chapter, their views provide

22

Simony is the final subject regarding which the theologians’ views are given. In this case, an

entire chapter is dedicated to Peter the Chanter’s writings. Unlike the previous two

examples, where the theologians’ solution to a specific problem is given, here a section is

dedicated to the Chanter’s definition and overall view of simony. Whole paragraphs are

reproduced from the Chanter’s Summa de sacramentis. In the previous two examples the

views of the theologians were given alongside the solutions of the canonists. In this case,

the Chanter’s view is allowed to stand by itself. Of all the theologians, the Chanter was

most special to John of Kent, who sometimes refers to him simply as magister.

There is one major, unnamed theological source that needs to be addressed, Robert of

Flamborough’s Liber poenitentialis. Flamborough was a canon-penitentiary at the Abbey of

Saint Victor in Paris. John of Kent regularly drew from Flamborough’s manual throughout

the first two books of the Summa. Since Flamborough was among the Parisian theologians,

must it be concluded that John of Kent was more indebted to the theologians than I have

admitted? Only partially, for John of Kent did not consider this theologian to be an

authority, and perhaps not even a theologus.66 When there was a difference of opinion on a

matter, John of Kent altered Flamborough’s text to fit his canonical viewpoint. This occurs,

for example, in the section on the various grades of orders. Flamborough stated, as

theologians of that time typically believed, that there are eight grades of orders. John of

Kent reproduced this section from Flamborough, but changed the number to nine. This was

the typical view of the canonists, who believed that the episcopate constituted its own ordo,

rather than only an added dignity as the theologians claimed.67

the closing comments, and are generally kept separate from the references explicitly made to the

theologos. See R. Weigand, “The Transmontane Decretists,” in HMCL, 174-210. 66 As John of Kent does not mention Robert by name, it is not certain that he regarded him as a

theologus. Robert more commonly employed canonical sources such as Huguccio than theologians

like Peter the Chanter. Not a great deal is known of Robert’s education, but he probably received an

education in theology similar to the Parisian theologos already mentioned. My sense is that John of

Kent would have regarded Robert as a theologus, despite Robert’s focused interest in incorporating

more canon law into his manual. See Firth, ed., Liber poenitentialis, 1-10. 67 Firth, ed., Liber poenitentialis, 101, n. 8.

23

Such disagreements between Flamborough and John of Kent were rare, in part because

Flamborough was already borrowing heavily from canon law sources, particularly the

Decretum and Huguccio’s Summa decretorum.68 Flamborough was additionally the first of the

manualists to begin incorporating the new decretal law.69 Among the Chanter’s circle of

theologians he was the most prone to have already drawn inspiration from canon law

sources.

The notable point that emerges from this analysis is that John of Kent wrote his Summa at a

point of inflection between the disciplines of theology and canon law. The post-conciliar

canonists, rather than the theologians, were beginning to dominate the production of

pastoral manuals. However, this point of inflection was not a simple transition of manualist

activity from Paris to Bologna, from the discipline of theology to canon law. The pastoral

concerns of practical theologians naturally led them to increasingly focus on canon law. As

van Engen described it, these “practical theologians evolved into lawyers” as a result of

dealing with specific issues of the internal and external fora.70 This transformation took

place in stages. Flamborough pointed towards this greater reliance on canon law, but John

of Kent travelled down that path fully.71 His manual is one of the first, if not the first, that is

a product of a fully trained canonical mind. John of Kent accurately stated in his prologue

that nearly everything would be corroborated by the canon law or the sententiae of the

greatest doctors of that faculty. Before John of Kent, I know of no other manual where this

would be equally true. In the decades after John of Kent, it could be said of many.72

68 Ibid., 1-20. 69 Ibid., 1; Boyle, “The inter-conciliar period 1179-1215,” 54. 70 “Theologians oriented toward practice became lawyers handing divine law when they took up

religious and ecclesiastical issues as cases to be settled, whether external or internal, and dealt with

authorities as precedents pertinent to settling cases.” van Engen, “From practical theology to divine

law: the work and mind of medieval canonists,” 879, 889: 71 According to Boyle, Robert’s manual was the first that was specifically designed to help priests in

the hearing of confessions, not just the cura animarum generally. Boyle, “The Summa for confessors as

a genre, and its religious intent,” 127; see also Boyle, “The inter-conciliar period 1179-1215,” 54. 72 This is not to say these future manuals were directly inspired by John of Kent. Rather, this

development towards a greater reliance on canon law was done by various manualists

independently.

24

2.3 LATERAN IV AND THE DISCIPLINE OF PASTORAL CARE

I have focused thus far on analyzing the Summa’s relationship to the disciplines of canon

law and theology. This has revealed important aspects of John of Kent’s manual, but there

is a limit to how much this method can reveal. In the effort to discover a still fuller

understanding of the Summa, I will introduce a third discipline, the discipline of pastoral

care. The purpose of this is, in part, to avoid a certain pitfall of focusing on the scholastic

milieu. As mentioned, there is a strong tendency for scholars to regard pastoral manuals as

derivative products of the more professional books of the theologians and canonists. In this

view, the manuals were only simplified and popularized versions of these books for the less

educated clergy. Boyle himself occasionally seemed to remark as much, that the purpose of

the manuals was “simply that of helping out priests in the cura animarum who did not

have access to the great commentaries and specialized writings of the major scholastics.”73

As an introduction to pastoralia, this description suffices, but not as a final analysis. John of

Kent drew extensively from the major scholastics, but there is a certain autonomous nature

of his Summa that this description misses, at least in its emphasis on the importance of the

professional textbooks. In an effort to illustrate this autonomous nature, I will reframe the

Summa within the third discipline of pastoral care.

Pastoral care underwent a significant reform in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, which

found its greatest expression in the council of Lateran IV in 1215. It was soon after Lateran

IV that John of Kent composed his Summa (c. 1216), in which he incorporated numerous

aspects of the council’s legislation. The council of 1215 was a culmination of, not a cause of,

the pastoral reform. This reform was already in full swing at the Lateran Council of 1179

and there were numerous other regional councils and legislation that likewise paved the

way for Lateran IV. John of Kent specifically mentions the synods of Paris and Rouen that

Robert Courson attended.74 He was also surely aware of the episcopal statutes that

73 “What really was the purpose of these manuals and summae? Simply that of helping out priests in

the cura animarum who did not have access to the great commentaries and specialized writings of

the major scholastics.” Boyle “The Summa for confessors as a genre, and its religious intent,” 128. 74 John of Kent, Summa, 1.928.

25

Archbishop Stephen Langton introduced for the province of Canterbury in 1213/1214,

which were often driven by the same concerns that Lateran IV addressed.75

The Lateran Council of 1215 articulated the central importance of the new discipline of

pastoral care when it declared the governance of souls was the highest art (ars artium

regimen animarum).76 It went on to emphasize repeatedly the ensuing need for clerical

reform and education. The effect was that Lateran IV presented soul-care as a discipline that

could be taught.77 John of Kent likewise used this type of language, namely that his Summa

was meant to instruct (instruere) other clerics, and that he would draw from those with

expertise (periti) in hearing confessions.78 By saying this was a new discipline of pastoral

care, I mean that the nature of priestly ministry was in a state of significant change. As will

be explained, the reforms that culminated in Lateran IV laid extensive demands on pastors

which did not exist in previous centuries.

It must first be asked, however, what does pastoral care consist of? At the most basic level,

there are two main aspects, the sacramental and catechetical. These find their respective

basis in Jesus’s commission to make disciples of all nations, baptizing and teaching them.79

What this consisted of in the specifics of individual circumstances and personalities of

medieval life is more difficult to answer. The genius of Lateran IV was to lay out a minimal

framework in which those specifics could be addressed. It did so by setting forth a system

of mutual responsibilities that clergy and laity owed each other.

75 See C&S, 23-36. 76 Canon 27 of Lateran IV, in DEC, 248. This phrase was first used by Gregory the Great and Gregory

Nazianzen, and was then later discussed in the medieval schools. See also Goering, William de

Montibus: The Schools and the Literature of Pastoral Care, 58. 77 Goering, “Pastoralia: The popular literature of the care of souls,” 670; “The internal forum of

penance.”405-27. 78 John of Kent, Summa, 3.1-20. 79 Matthew 28:16-20.

26

For the laity, they had the primary duties of paying tithes, of annual confession and

reception of the Eucharist.80 The responsibilities placed on clergy were more demanding. To

be a priest, the council desired not only a well-formed character, but an education. In the

council’s view, it was better to have a few good ministers than many who were not good. It

condemned the practice of ordaining ignorant and unformed men.81 The expectations of a

priest to perform the various cultic duties continued as before, but the priest could no

longer be only an minister of sacraments and sacramentals. If he was to engage in

preaching, he needed training in theology. As a confessor, he needed training as a judge

when granting absolution and assigning penances. Even for the poor and simple priest,

Lateran IV wanted arrangements made to provide a minimal amount of education. Shortly

before, the Third Lateran Council had decreed that each cathedral church was to appoint a

master of the arts who would freely instruct its clerics and other poor students under its

jurisdiction.82 This was extended by Lateran IV, which wanted such a master appointed in

every church with sufficient means to do so. In addition, the cathedral church was to have a

theologian appointed to instruct priests in Sacred Scriptures and “those things which

pertain especially to the cura animarum.”83

The pastoral reform centered around various issues, two of which will be noted here,

preaching and confession. Of the two, Lateran IV was more concerned with preaching.84 In

times past, preaching had been the prerogative of the bishop. This was changing rapidly.

Soon there would be an explosion of mendicants dedicated to preaching, and preaching by

people other than the bishop was already common in certain regions and situations.85

80 Canon 21 of Lateran IV, in DEC, 245. 81 Canons 26-27 of Lateran IV, in DEC, 247-8. 82 Canon 18 of Lateran III, in DEC., 220. 83 Canon 11 of Lateran IV, in DEC, 240. 84 For the other concerns of Lateran IV, such as the crusade and proper legal procedure, see K.

Pennington, “The Fourth Lateran Council, its legislation, and the development of legal procedure,”

in Texts and Contexts in Legal History: Essays in Honor of Charles Donahue, eds. J. Witte, S. McDougall

and A. di Robilant (Robbins Collection, University of California Berkeley 2016), 179-98. 85 See D. W. Robertson, “Frequency of preaching in thirteenth-century England,” Speculum 24 (1949):

376-88.

27

Lateran IV was justifiably concerned about the spread of heresy through unauthorized

preachers. It emphasized the requirement of the bishop’s commission for anyone to engage

in preaching.86 Nonetheless, it saw the usefulness of preaching and did not attempt to

restrict preaching to the bishop. It decreed rather that bishops appoint suitable men to

travel about the diocese to fill the office of preaching.87 Through this means the education of

the laity would also be accomplished.

John of Kent’s Summa focused specifically on the other aspect of Lateran IV’s reform,

confession. It was said earlier that pastoral care had two aspects, the sacramental and

catechetical. In a later century, when William of Pagula addressed what pastoral care

consisted of, he added a third: confessional practice.88 In the reality of pastoral care,

confession became such a large part of the priest’s duties that it could be analyzed under its

own category. The reasons for this are evident. The other sacraments and sacramentals were

administered in a consistent way according the rubrics of the Church. Confession

demanded more. The priest had to learn the rubrics of the sacrament and the Church’s

moral laws, but this knowledge was not enough to make him a good confessor. The priest

needed to cultivate a juridical mind. Every confession was unique and demanded a unique

judgment. For a negligent priest who assigned penances in a detached way, this may not

have amounted to much. For an attentive priest who cared about his ministry, determining

a proper judgment was a heavy responsibility.89

In bringing forth this aspect of confession, namely the importance of inculcating a juridical

mind, certain parts of John of Kent’s Summa become more intelligible. It was said earlier

that the first two books provided the priest with the knowledge necessary for the internal

86 Canon 3 of Lateran IV, in DEC, 234-5. 87 Canon 10 of Lateran IV, in DEC, 239-40. 88 L. Boyle, “The Oculus sacerdotis of William of Pagula,” in Pastoral care, clerical education and canon

law 1200-1400 (London: Variorum, 1981), IV: 84. 89 John of Kent states that, if a priest, out of favoritism or negligence, assigned an improper penance,

the priest himself might be held to make up for the lost penitence in purgatory. Summa, 3.936-44.

28

forum. Yet there are numerous instances where John of Kent delves into obscure cases of

simony, usury or so forth that would likely never arise in the confessional. I see two reasons

for including these legal casus. The first, which will not be focused on, is that John of Kent

found them personally interesting. This aspect of composition, although rarely

acknowledged, may be the primary reason. The second reason, which is more relevant to

this investigation, is that complex hypothetical cases could be used to inculcate a juridical

mindset.90 Even if a priest had a comprehensive knowledge of the entirety of canon law, this

would not make him a good confessor. In the internal forum, more was needed than a

simple administration of canon law. In every confession he had to exercise his arbitrium. By

working through these hypothetical cases, John of Kent provided the priest with an

opportunity to become a more prudent judge.

Was this expecting too much of the average priest? On one level, certainly. That is why John

of Kent emphasized the necessity of invoking the grace of the Holy Spirit to guide the

confessor in his duties. In fact, John of Kent’s expectations of the confessor were still more

extensive. In the Summa, the confessor was responsible not only for the judgement, but the

investigation. He was to be a ‘diligent inquisitor’ and ‘subtle investigator,’ bringing to light

any sin the sinner was unaware of or wanted to shamefully hide. Before the confessor could

issue a judgment, it was up to him to conduct the investigation and determine what the

relevant evidence was. The third book of John of Kent’s Summa is thus filled with the

confessor’s interrogations of the penitent, with the penitent’s responses kept brief.

There was a practical solution that would, among other things, lessen the confessor’s role.

By also training the layman in the judicial arts, the investigation could be left up to him to

conduct before entering the confessional. A well-prepared layman would have the relevant

facts of his case ready to present, without wasting time on superfluous details. In this

90 van Engen has also spoken of the importance of considering the pastoral summae as summae

casuum. See van Engen, “From practical theology to divine law: the work and mind of medieval

canonists,” 895. See also J. Goering, “The Summa of Master Serlo and thirteenth-century penitential

literature,” Mediaeval Studies 40 (1978): 298-311.

29

situation, the confessor still presided as judge, but his role as investigator was greatly

lessened. The way to imbue the layman with this juridical mind was two-fold. First, the

layman needed to know the moral law of the Church. Second, he needed to enact a type of

self-judgment, examining his past and deciding what sins he needed to accuse himself of.

This accusation was then presented in the confessional, where the confessor reviewed,

rather than gathered, the evidence and gave the final judgment.

This type of penitential investigation and self-judgment has a more familiar name, the

examination of conscience. Other texts of pastoralia were specifically focused on providing

a framework for this examination.91 In John of Kent’s Summa, it is only briefly addressed.

The priest tells the penitent “Say therefore what you are able to remember. For the rest, I

will help you [to remember] insofar as God has entrusted to me.” The narrator then inserts:

“Then let the priest observe what the penitent said and the things which he left out that the

priest should inquire about. It is permitted that the priest says by his own initiative (proprio

motu) what he thinks needs to be confessed.” The Summa then transitions into the various

types of questions a priest might ask depending on the penitent’s initial statements. At one

point the penitent is reprimanded for not coming prepared to answer the priest’s inquiries

about the frequency of his sins, indicating an expectation that the penitent would have gone

through some form of an examination of conscience.92

Lateran IV’s canon regarding annual confession had a stipulation with profound

implications for the nature of pastoral care. Confession was to be made to one’s own priest,

the proprius sacerdos.93 This was part of a growing moment that priviledged the parish priest,

which Boyle named as one of the main impulses behind the growth of pastoralia.94 John of

91 For examples, see M. Cornett, The form of confession: a later medieval genre for examining conscience,

PhD dissertation (University of Chapel Hill, 2011), passim. 92 John of Kent, Summa, 3.101. 93 Canon 21 of Lateran IV, in DEC, 245. See also P. A. Kirsch, “Der sacerdos proprius in der

abendländischen Kirche vor dem Jahre 1215,” Archiv für katholisches Kirchenrecht 84 (1904): 527-37. 94 “In fine, if pastoral manuals begin to appear for the first time in the inter-conciliar period 1179-

1215, this primarily was because the parochial clergy had by now acquired an identity and were

30

Kent emphasized this right of the proprius sacerdos at the beginning of the Summa,

presenting it as established practice: “It is known that [a confessor] should not admit a

foreign sheep without the license of his pastor. If he is not able to have his own pastor, he is

able to be admitted in emergencies.”95 This requirement was central to Lateran IV’s vision,

which affirmed the parish priest as the ordinary agent of pastoral care.96

Lateran IV’s choice of the parish priest was not a foregone conclusion. During this period

much of pastoral care was administered by various monastic orders. Additionally, the

explosive mendicant orders would soon fill large gaps in the cura animarum. Later

polemicists sought to extend the proprius sacerdos to include mendicants as well as the

parish priest, but that is not of concern here.97 In 1215, the Lateran Council had made the

prudent choice of focusing on the parish priest under the direct supervision of the bishop.

In a situation where both parish priest and monastic clergy were offering care in the same

area, the laity’s first obligation was to their parish priest.

The parish priest was a relative newcomer to ecclesiastical life. In England, the parochia was

originally a unit of land under the direct supervision of the bishop. Only gradually were

priests placed in charge of defined geographical units. The first step of this transformation

was the minster system, a type unique to England. A minster was a large church staffed by

numerous priests that offered pastoral care over a large area. By the twelfth century this

had developed into the parish system, a system of small churches often staffed by a single

making themselves heard; secondly, because it was therefore imperative that the latest teaching of

the schools should be made available to them; and, thirdly, because the literary genres to accomplish

this were by then readily to hand.” Boyle, “The inter-conciliar period 1179-1215,” 56. 95 John of Kent, Summa, 1.45-7. 96 Gratian’s Decretum allowed an exception to the rule that confession should be made to the sacerdos

proprius, namely if one’s own priest was incompetent. John of Kent made a more restricted

allowance, allowing a penitent to receive permission from a superior authority, who could grant it if

the proprius sacerdos was incompetent. John of Kent, Summa, 1.45-53. See also W. Campbell, The

landscape of pastoral care in 13th-century England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018), 142. 97 For a discussion of the future debates surrounding this phrase, see ibid., 140-7.

31

priest over a smaller area.98 Much could be said about the impact this had on pastoral care,

but the salient point is that it put an immense responsibility on the individual priest. Each

parish priest, if operating his own church, had to provide nearly every aspect of pastoral

care to his flock. There were no other priests to divvy up priestly duties according to

individual roles and abilities. A parish priest needed to be, in the words of Saint Paul, “all

things to all people.”

By way of conclusion, it is not surprising that a genre of literature developed in light of

these new demands to assist priests in the cura animarum. As such, the proximate cause for

John of Kent’s Summa, and pastoralia more generally, was the experience of clerics engaged

in the cura animarum. The schoolmen did not write manuals because they were schoolmen,

but because they were pastors. It should be emphasized again how many of the Parisian

scholars earlier mentioned were directly involved in pastoral care, particularly at the Abbey

of Saint Victor. Similarly, the canonists who wrote the great manuals of the following

centuries were largely Dominicans and Franciscans, responding to the needs of their fellow

mendicants. As John of Kent himself stated in the prologue to the third book of his Summa,

his motivation for writing was the request of a fellow confessor looking for advice.

It would be a mistake then to view pastoralia as only, or even primarily, a derivative

product of the major scholastics. Pastoralia was not ‘bookish.’ It was not a fetish of

university learning, produced by schoolmen who thought even the most simple priest

should have a scholastic education. Manualists like John of Kent drew from theology and

canon law because those disciplines were useful and related to pastoral care. They utilized

theology and canon law for the sake of a higher discipline, that of pastoral care, which

Lateran IV believed was the ars artium, the highest art.

98 D. M. Palliser, “Introduction: the parish in perspective,” in Parish, church and people: local studies in

lay religion 1350-1750, ed. S. J. Wright (London: Hutchinson, 1988), 7-9; J. Blair, “Introduction: from

minster to parish church,” in Minsters and parish churches: the local church in transition: 950-1200, ed. J.

Blair (Oxford: Alden Press, 1988), 1-20.

32

CHAPTER 3

John of Kent and his Summa de penitencia

3.1 AUTHORSHIP

The case for attributing the authorship of the Summa de penitencia to John of Kent was first

detailed by Joseph Goering. Several manuscripts of the Summa were known to earlier

scholars, but none of them attributed the text to a particular author. While researching the

writings of Robert Grosseteste, Goering discovered a manuscript at Emmanuel College,

Cambridge that contains a small section of the Summa, and which attributes it to John of

Kent. This discovery was first detailed in an article published in the 1988 Bulletin of Medieval

Canon Law.1 It will be useful now to review again the evidence for John of Kent’s

authorship.

The Emmanuel College manuscript is the only one of the five extant manuscripts that

claims John of Kent as the author of the Summa de penitencia.2 The manuscript was written

by a single scribe and is largely composed of unidentified excerpts of theological and

penitential texts. On folio 200r there is a rubric “On the Eucharist and what its substance is

and by whom it should be handled,”3 and then the attribution “according to Master John of

****,”4 with a large wavy line written overtop an unintelligible word. A small portion of the

text is then produced, but this is interrupted when the scribe began copying from a treatise

of Innocent III on folio 201v. A short while later, on folio 204v, the scribe resumes copying

from the Summa, beginning with this rubric: “Likewise Master John of Cautia, concerning

who should handle this sacrament.”5

1 J. Goering, “The Summa de penitentia of John of Kent,” BMCL 18 (1988): 13–31. 2 Richard Sharpe, in his comprehensive studies of English and Irish library catalogues, has collected

together all the known attestations of John of Kent’s Summa in English libraries. R. Sharpe. A handlist

of the Latin writers of Great Britain and Ireland before 1540 (Belgium: Brepols, 1997), 267-8. 3 “De eukaristia et quid sit eius substantia et a quibus tractanda.” See appendix A, ln. 1-2. 4 “Secundum magistrum Iohannem de ****.” See appendix A, ln. 2. 5 “Item magister Iohannes de Cautia, a quibus tractandum est hoc sacramentum.” See appendix A,

ln. 38.

33

In the 1988 article, this second rubric was transcribed as John of Cantia. Upon analyzing the

manuscript, both in microfilm and in situ, it is clear it should be read as John of Cautia.6 The

scribe distinctly and consistently distinguished between n and u, making it certain this is

the correct transcription. However, although the scribe clearly wrote Cautia, it is likely he

made a mistake, or someone earlier in the manuscript tradition made a mistake, and that

Cantia was the original form.7 Retaining Cantia as the correct toponym is further bolstered

by the fact that Cautia does not refer to any known location or surname. Cantia, on the other

hand, is a well-known place. It refers to the county of Kent, or sometimes specifically to the

city of Canterbury.8 Oftentimes Kent appears in historical records as Chent, Cantianus or

variants thereof.9

There are several corroborating pieces of evidence to support attributing the text to John of

Cantia. These come from library records which record a Summa likely written by the same

John of Cantia. The first record is from Peterborough Abbey, where there was a Summa Mag.

J. de Cantia de penitentia that was given to the library by Walter of St. Edmund in 1233-45.10

Later in 1263-74 abbot Robert Sutton bequeathed a Summa cum aliis rebus written by M. J.

Cantia.11 In the library matricularium, under the shelf mark “H.xii”, there was a Summa Mag.

J. de Cancia de penitencia, which likely corresponded to the gift of Walter of St. Edmund.12

Under the shelf mark ‘I.xi” in the matricularium there was a Summa Mag. J. de Cancia de

decretis.13

6 See plate 2. 7 Because the toponym in the first rubric was crossed out, this may indicate the scribe had some

doubt about the toponym, possibly stemming from a corruption in the exemplar. 8 T. Miller, Place names in the English Bede and the localisation of the MSS (Strasbourg: Trübner, 189), 65-

8. 9 J. Goering, “The Summa de penitentia of John of Kent,” 13. 10 K. Friis-Jenson, and J. M. W. Willoughby, eds., Peterborough abbey, vol. 8 of CBMLC (London: The

British Library, 2001), BP7.9. 11 Ibid., BP10.6a. 12 Ibid., BP21.261t. 13 Ibid., BP21.239c. Goering suggested that the Summa de decretis and Summa de aliis rebus were the

same work, and by the same John of Kent that authored the Summa de penitencia. See Goering, “The

Summa de penitentia of John of Kent,” 15. While the title Summa de decretis would certainly not be a

34

At Ramsey Abbey the books of John the Precentor included a Summa magistri Johannis de

Cancia, and the books of William Forester included a Summa magistri Johannis de Cantia.14 At

the Cistercian Abbey of Meaux there was an additional Summa magistri Iohannis de Cancia.15

Thus, between the libraries of Meaux, Ramsey and Peterborough Abbeys there are multiple

copies of a Summa by John of Cantia. although there is some discrepancy over how the

Summa should be described. All of these manuscripts are lost, but their records corroborate

the claim that John of Kent is the author of the Summa de penitencia edited here, and that the

Cautia in the Emmanuel College manuscript should be corrected to Cantia.

Having established John of Kent’s authorship, I will turn now to see what else can be

determined about our author. Kent was a populous place in medieval Europe, and John a

popular name. Nonetheless, there are several new details about John of Kent’s career that

can be ascertained, and several older details that are probably mistaken.

3.2 BIOGRAPHICAL DETAILS

Up till now, it was generally assumed that the John of Kent who authored the Summa de

penitencia spent at least the majority of his life in England, particularly as a canon of Saint

Paul’s, London. A couple of his legal opinions are thought to have been recorded in the so-

called “Royal Questions” manuscript. However, as will be demonstrated here for the first

time, it was a different John of Kent who authored the Summa de penitencia. This John of

Kent left England for the continent where he studied and practiced law, and then later

became a canon at Saint Mary’s, Angers. In this section, I will first detail the circumstantial

correct title for the work edited here, it is possible, as Goering suggested, that the title was a scribal

invention. In Friis-Jenson and Willoughby’s edition, they note that the matricularium is untidy and

incomplete, and that it was probably not used as the ordinary catalogue of the library; see

Peterborough abbey, 49. As will be shown below, there may have been two canonists called John of

Kent from this period. It remains a possibility then, that the Summa de decretis is a completely

different work, and by a different author, than the Summa de penitentia. 14 R. Sharpe, J. P. Carley, R. M. Thomson and A. G. Watson, eds., English Benedictine libraries: the

shorter catalogues, vol. 4 of CBMLC (London: The British Library, 1996), B68.359, B68.482. 15 D. Bell, ed., The libraries of the Cistercians, Gilbertines and Premonstratensians, vol. 3 of CBMLC

(London: The British Library, 1992), Z14.231a.

35

evidence that has hitherto been used to connect the author of the Summa de penitencia to a

canon at Saint Paul’s, London. I will then demonstrate the new evidence from John Leland,

which shows that the author of the Summa de penitencia should instead be identified with a

canon at Saint Mary’s, Angers.

Evidence for the author being a canon of Saint Paul’s, London

It was Stephan Kuttner who first suggested that the Summa found in the libraries of

Peterborough and Ramsey Abbeys was written by the canonist John of Kent, previously

known as the author of a series of legal opinions recorded in the Questiones Londinenses,

which are found in a text likely written after 1196.16 These so called “Royal Questions”—

thus named because they are found in the British Library’s Royal collection—remain only in

manuscript form, but they have been studied extensively by James Brundage and others.17

They contain a case of an abbot who was given a papal privilege exempting him from

serving as a papal judge against his will. He was later commissioned to hear a case as a

papal judge delegate. A solutio of a certain Jo. de chent was offered as to whether the abbot’s

privilege stood, with John of Kent holding that it did, and that the abbot was exempt from

serving.18 Another a decisio magistri Jo. ca. was recorded a little later in the manuscript, and a

decisio J. c. a few lines below that.19

16 S. Kuttner, “Pierre de Roissy and Robert of Flamborough,” Traditio 2 (1944): 494, n. 9. 17 London, British Library, Royal 9.E.VII, fols. 191r-198v. See J. A. Brundage, “A twelfth century

Oxford disputation concerning the privileges of the Knights Hospitallers.” Mediaeval Studies 24

(1962): 153-60; J. A. Brundage, “The treatment of marriage in the Questiones Londinenses (MS Royal

9.E.VII),” Manuscripta 19 (1975): 86-97; L. Boyle, “The beginnings of legal studies at Oxford,” Viator 14

(1983): 107-31; R. Weigand, “The transmontane decretists,” in HMCL, 201-2. 18 “Cuidam abbati indulsit papa priuilegium ut de nulla causa inuitus cognosceret, postmodum

delegauit ei causam quandam. Hinc due formantur questiones: Prima an teneatur cognoscere non

obstante priuilegio; secunda an cognoscendo de causa una, sic preiudicauit quoad hoc ut de omnibus

aliis cognoscere teneatur. Quod non obstante priuilegio teneatur de causa cognoscere sibi commissa

sic probatur [….] Solutio Io. de chent. Solutio: Non reuocatur sic priuilegium istud licet aliud fit in

appellacione, ut in extra. de officio eius a quo appellatur, Sicut [X 1.3.1]. Illud enim euidentissimam

continet iniquitatem et quamlibet qui contra eum litigaret uehementissime lederet; unde illud ex

facili reuocat imperator. Illud uero priuilegium summam continet equitatem, uidelicet ne claustrales

causarum cognicionibus uexentur.” London, British Library, Royal 9.E.VII, fol. 196ra. 19 This final reference may be to John of Kent, or possibly the canonist John of Tynemouth (d. 1221).

See Goering, “The Summa de penitentia of John of Kent,” 14, no. 4.

36

In Emden’s Biographical register of the University of Oxford, it was suggested that this John of

Kent taught in the early schools at Oxford.20 This was based on his inclusion in the Royal

Questions manuscript alongside other magistri known to have taught there. Brundage

likewise included John of Kent in the circle of Oxford men associated with Master John of

Tynemouth in the 1190s, many of whom later moved into the service of archbishop Hubert

Walter.21 It was these men, educated overseas, who taught the first generation of scholars

who remained in England for their education in canon law. Among their students, Thomas

of Marlborough was the most illustrious, although he too supplemented his education at

Bologna while staying in Italy trying a case before Pope Innocent III.22 As such, it is

reasonable to suppose that this John of Kent also travelled overseas for his legal education

and then returned to England.23

Some further details, based on circumstantial evidence, about the career of this John of Kent

have been gleaned from the charters of medieval England. These charters contain several

men named John of Kent—a not uncommon name—and Kuttner and Rathbone first began

the investigation into which of them may have been the canonist John of Kent.24 This

investigation was continued by Joseph Goering25 and finally myself. A John of Kent who is

possibly, but I think unlikely, the same man first appears 1173-82 when witnessing a charter

20 A. B. Emden, A biographical register of the University of Oxford to A.D. 1500, vol. 2: F to O (Oxford:

Clarendon Press, 1958), v. John of Kent. 21 J. A. Brundage, “The rise of the professional canonists,” in The profession and practice of medieval

canon law (Ashgate: Variorum, 2004), I.37. 22 A. Boureau, “How law came to the monks: the use of law in English society at the beginning of the

thirteenth century,” Past and Present 167 (2000): 29. Thomas never mentions John of Kent in his

chronicle. 23 Boyle likewise thought this was the case. See “The beginnings of legal studies at Oxford,” Viator 14

(1983): 107. 24 Kuttner and Rathbone, “Anglo-Norman canonists of the twelfth century: an introductory study,”

320, n. 43. 25 Goering, “The Summa de penitentia of John of Kent,” 13-7. In my investigation of contemporary

English charters, I have found one additional John of Kent, but he is a layman, father and landowner

in 1209. As such, it can be assumed he is not the author: See E. Mason, ed., The Beauchamp cartulary,

1100-1268, Pipe Roll Society (London: Ruddock & Sons, 1980), no. 293-4.

37

of Geoffrey, bishop-elect of Lincoln.26 Another John of Kent was a justice at Northampton in

June of 1190.27 He or a different John of Kent worked as a clerk for archbishop Hubert

Walter of Canterbury. The John who served Hubert Walter was appointed rector of

Appledore in Kent by Felix, the prior of Dover, and frequently appears as a witness in the

charters of the archbishop.28

Kuttner originally identified the man serving under Hubert Walter with the John of Kent

who was chancellor of St. Paul’s Cathedral, London.29 Cheney found this identification

doubtful since Hubert Walter’s clerk is not described as magister.30 Kuttner later

acknowledged this doubt, but did not change his initial identification.31 Kuttner’s hesitation

to concede the point was well founded. Among the citations in the Royal Questions, John of

Kent was not consistently described there as magister either. Regardless, it was the

chancellor of St. Paul’s whom Goering suggested wrote the Summa de penitencia.32 This

figure appears in the records as an official of the bishop of London after 1195. It is unclear

whether he was yet a canon, but by May 1199 he was certainly a canon. By 1204 he had been

appointed chancellor, the first with that title at St. Paul’s.33 He likely served there until

around 1213, when Master Gervase appears in the records bearing the title of chancellor.34

26 C. W. Foster and K. Major, eds., The registrum antiquissimum of the cathedral Church of Lincoln, vol. 2.

(Hereford: Lincoln Record Society, 1933), 33. 27 Kuttner and Rathbone, “Anglo-Norman canonists of the twelfth century: an introductory study,”

320, n. 43. 28 Ibid. 29 Ibid. See also Emden, A biographical register of the University of Oxford to A.D. 1500, vol. 2: F to O.

(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1958), 1037. 30 Cheney, Hubert Walter (London: Nelson, 1967), 166; Cheney and John, eds. English episcopal acta. III:

Canterbury 1193-1205 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986), 198-9. 31 Kuttner, “Retractationes,” in Gratian and the schools of law, 1140-1234 (London: Variorum, 1983), 33. 32 Goering, “The Summa de penitentia of John of Kent,” 14. 33 Greenway, ed., St. Paul’s, London. Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae, vol 1: 1066-1300 (London: Athlone Press,

1968), 26, 49. 34 Ibid., 26.

38

Soon afterward, a John of Kent is witnessed serving the new archbishop of Canterbury.

Stephen Langton had just returned from exile and created a prebend in South Malling for

the collegiate church of St. Michael. He granted this prebend to a Master John de Cant’.35 In

1214, sometime before September 10, the last known mention of this John of Kent is made.

At this date he was still in possession of the prebend of South Malling, and Stephen

Langton made him the beneficiary of another prebend in Mayfield.36

Despite what may have been be expected, no certain evidence has been found of any Master

John of Kent serving as a papal judge delegate.37 Sayers produced an extensive study of

these delegates in the province of Canterbury during the period 1198-1254. She documented

a Master John of unstated origin who was canon of Lincoln from (?)1206-1215 and

archdeacon of Oxford from 1215 to 1221. But this is surely John of Tynemouth (d. 1221). She

also identified this same John as the one who served as papal judge delegate when in the

service of archbishop Hubert Walter.38 It is possible Sayers was mistaken on this final point,

and that it was John of Kent who served under Hubert Walter as a papal judge delegate.

However, the more likely possibility is that the judge delegate was the same John of

Tynemouth, also known to have served the archbishop.

In summary, what can be said of this John of Kent? From the circumstantial evidence

detailed above the following scenario can be sketched out: This John of Kent was born in

England in the middle of the twelfth century. He travelled abroad for at least part of his

education, and by the 1190s he was back in England as a magister teaching and practicing

35 Cheney, Canterbury 1193-1205, 198-99. 36 K. Major, ed., Acta Stephani Langton Cantuariensis Archiepiscopi A.D. 1207-1228 (Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 1950), no. 9. This charter notes the conversion of the church of St. Dunstan,

Mayfield into the fifth prebend of the collegiate church of South Malling. 37 The only possible additional note from Sayer’s work is the record of a Master John, rector of

Sibertwold (Kent) in July of 1238, confirming the settlement between him and the convent of St.

Martin, Dover. See J. E. Sayers, Papal judges delegate in the province of Canterbury: 1198-1254: A study in

ecclesiastical jurisdiction and administration (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971), 243. 38 See ibid., 131, n. 8.

39

law with the other early Oxford masters. He soon entered ecclesiastical service under

Hubert Walter, who was installed as archbishop of Canterbury in 1193. He served the

archbishop for a couple of years till the mid 1190s, when he became a canon and later

chancellor of St. Paul’s, London. By 1213 he had left St. Paul’s and joined again the service

of the archbishop of Canterbury, this time Stephen Langton.

Evidence for the author being a canon of Saint Mary’s, Angers

The new evidence for the author of the Summa de penitencia being a canon of Saint Mary’s,

Angers comes from John Leland (c. 1503-1552).39 In Leland’s On famous men, he included the

following entry on John of Kent:

Once he reached adulthood John of Kent left his native land and the schools in

which he had progressed in his youth and sought Aquitaine in France; there he

studied legal opinions as an unimpeachable lawyer. Afterwards he became a canon

at Angers in the church of St Mary. At this time he edited two short books of cases,

otherwise known as The Rubrics.40

The two short books of cases (de casibus) are certainly the same as the first two books of John

of Kent’s Summa de penitencia. While the complete Summa is composed of three books, the

first two books were originally a separate work, as will be discussed below. Additionally,

two of the five surviving manuscripts contain the first two books alone. While neither of

those manuscripts contains a title for the work, many of the rubrics which divide up the

first two books explicitly state that they are a collection of cases, for example section 2.22,

entitled “Cases which concern usury” (De casibus qui contingunt circa usuram).

The second title of the work given by Leland, The Rubrics, is not found in any of the extant

manuscripts or medieval library catalogues. When John Bale expanded on Leland’s entry,

39 I must thank James Carley, with the assistance of Caroline Brett, for directing me to John Leland,

and for our detailed discussions about John of Kent. 40 “Iohannes Cantianus, relicta patria et scholis in quibus adolescens creuit, iam uirileis attingens

annos, Galliam Aquitanicam petiit, ubi et placita legum causidicus non improbandus excutiebat. Fit

postea canonicus Andegauensis in fano Diuae Mariae sacro; quo tempore aedidit duos de casibus

libellos, alias Rubricas.” John Leland, De uiris illustribus: On famous men, ed. and trans. J. Carley

(Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2010), n. 278.

40

he thought The Rubrics was referring to an entirely different work.41 However, James Carley,

Leland’s modern editor, believes that the sentence in Leland’s catalogue, “aedidit duos de

casibus libellos, alias Rubricas” is best translated as referring to one book only, but one known

by two titles. Where this second title came from is unknown, and I am not aware of other

examples of pastoral or canonical works with similar titles. It is also possible that the phrase

alias rubricas is best understood as a description of the work, rather than as an alternate title.

This prologue to the Summa similarly states that the work will be divided up per capitula et

rubricas.42

Leland knew of John of Kent and his Summa from Ramsey Abbey, whose library, as

previously mentioned, contained at least two copies of John of Kent’s Summa. Leland

certainly had access to the library at Ramsey before Henry VIII’s dissolution of the

monasteries. In Leland’s own notes, he mentioned ten of the works he found there, the

eighth of which is a Summa de casibus magistri Ioannis de Cantia, which presumably

corresponded to one of the copies of John of Kent’s Summa there.43 Leland was thus an eye-

witness to the now lost manuscripts of John of Kent at Ramsey Abbey.

Furthermore, at least one of the manuscripts at Ramsey Abbey likely contained personal

information about John of Kent. The Emmanuel College manuscript, which contains the

only surviving attribution to John of Kent, is known to have been copied from a manuscript

at Ramsey.44 Its exemplar, now lost, is probably what Leland examined, and is perhaps

what contained the additional information found in Leland’s entry on John of Kent. Unlike

John Bale (1495-1563), who also wrote an entry on John of Kent that will be discussed

below, Leland was a reliable historian and his claim that John of Kent was a canon at

Angers would have been made in good faith. It presumably came from historical

knowledge that Leland had, and which modern scholars no longer have access to.

41 See below, n. 57. 42 John of Kent, Summa, prologue, ln. 14. 43 See Sharpe et al., eds., English Benedictine libraries: the shorter catalogues, 417-8. 44 See my description of the Emmanuel College manuscript in chapter 4.2.

41

While I have not found other documents to corroborate Leland’s claim that John of Kent

was specifically at Angers, there is supporting evidence which corroborates the claim that

the Summa was composed on the continent rather than in England. This comes from

internal evidence found in the Summa. In the second book of the Summa, there is an example

of usury taken verbatim from Bernard of Pavia’s Summa decretalium.45 The case concerns

merchants who transport wares from Bologna to Rouen. John of Kent left the text

unchanged, with the sole difference being that the wares were now transported from Paris

to Rouen. This practice of changing place names to something more familiar to the intended

audience indicates a French origin, and corroborates Leland’s claim that the Summa was

composed on the continent, not in England.46 Additionally, the confessor depicted in the

third book of the Summa frequently employs French vernacular words in his dialogue with

the penitent, which likewise shows that all three books of the Summa are of French, not

English, origin.

In summary, the case for taking Leland at his word, and thus identifying the author of the

Summa de penitencia with a canon at Angers, rather than London, has three parts. The first is

Leland’s personal reputation as a reliable historian.47 The second is the known fact that he

examined a manuscript of John of Kent at Ramsey library, which has since been lost. The

third is the internal evidence in the Summa, which corroborates Leland’s claim that it was

composed in France, not England.

As well, the previous identification of the author of the Summa de penitencia with a canon at

Saint Paul’s, London was based solely on circumstantial evidence. John was a popular name

and Kent was a populous place. In light of this new evidence from Leland, that

circumstantial evidence can be put aside. As such, it can be concluded that the canon at

45 John of Kent, Summa, 2.834-5. 46 See also K. Pennington and W. Müller, “The decretists: the Italian school,” in HMCL, 165. 47 James Carley, who is John Leland’s foremost editor, stated to me in a personal conversation that

Leland should either be taken at his word in this case, or at least that he would not have fabricated

evidence.

42

Saint Paul’s was an entirely different person than the John of Kent who authored the Summa

de penitencia.

Another question on this point remains. Even if the canon of Saint Paul’s, London is not the

author of the Summa, is it still possible that the Master John of Kent recorded in the Royal

Questions manuscript is the same man described by Leland? Leland stated that John of

Kent’s legal education and career were done in France. However, it is conceivable that a

record of his legal decisions travelled back to England, just as his Summa did. Or, that John

of Kent himself occasionally travelled back to native land and interacted with other

canonists there. As such, it remains possible that the Master John of Kent of the Royal

Questions manuscript was the same as the canon at Saint Mary’s Angers and the author of

the Summa de penitencia.

Further points of biographical information can only be guessed at. When examining the text

of the Summa, there are a couple clues regarding John of Kent’s education, namely when he

described someone as magister. In the prologue to book three, this epithet was used

anonymously, but there are three instances where it was used to describe a specific person.

The first is Peter the Chanter (d. 1197).48 However, due to the Chanter’s fabulous reputation,

the conclusion that John of Kent personally studied under him at Paris is unwarranted. The

second magister is Gerard Pucelle (d. 1184).49 He was associated with canonistic activity in

both Paris and Cologne,50 and presumably taught theology and law in France for several

years in the late 1160s and early 1170s.51 The final magister is Ricardus Anglicus. John of

Kent invoked him during a discussion about whether an excommunicated and suspended

cleric truly confects the Eucharist. The opinion of the Chanter was first given, but John of

48 John of Kent, Summa, 1.444. 49 John of Kent, Summa, 2.988. 50 See Kuttner and Rathbone, “Anglo-Norman canonists of the twelfth century: an introductory

study,” 296-303. 51 C. Donahue, “Pucelle, Gerard (d. 1184)”, in ODNB (Oxford: 2004).

43

Kent preferred the alternate opinion of magister Ricardus de Moris.52 Ricardus first taught in

the late 1180s at Paris.53 He then moved to Bologna and had an illustrious career there, and

around the turn of the century he returned to England.54 All things considered, if John of

Kent had a personal connection to any of these three magistri, it would have been on the

continent, likely at Paris. This, of course, is purely speculative, but it further shows that

there is nothing in the text of the Summa that would indicate that Leland was mistaken

about its French origin.

After Leland, various other early modern historians wrote about John of Kent. Entries on

Johannes Cantianus can be found in the catalogues of John Bale, John Pits, Thomas Tanner,

Lucas Wadding, and several others.55 These entries usually replicate Leland’s text, but they

also contain additional claims, notably that John of Kent became a Franciscan after his time

at Angers, and that he was one of the first Franciscans sent to England in the mid thirteenth

century.56 These new claims can be disregarded as they can all be ultimately traced back to

John Bale, a contemporary of Leland. Unlike Leland, Bale is notoriously unreliable.57 It was

Bale’s claim that the John of Kent described by Leland was the same John mentioned by

Eccleston in his De adventu fratrum minorum in Angliam, and by extension the same John

52 John of Kent, Summa, 1.712-3. 53 Kuttner and Rathbone, “Anglo-Norman canonists of the twelfth century: an introductory study,”

passim. G. Silano, ed., The Distinctiones Decretorum of Ricardus Anglicus, PhD dissertation (University

of Toronto, 1982), 1-18. 54 R. C. Figueira, “Morins, Richard de (d. 1242)”, in ODNB (Oxford: 2004). 55 John Bale, Scriptorum illustrium maioris Brytanniae, quam nunc Angliam et Scotiam uocant, catalogus

(Basel: Johannes Oporinus, 1557), v. Ioannes Cantianus; John Pits, Relationes historicae de rebus Anglicis,

vol. 1. (Paris: Rolinus Thierry and Sebastianum Cramoisy, 1619), n. 347; Lucas Wadding, Scriptores

Ordinis Minorum (Rome: 1650), 195; Thomas Tanner, Bibliotheca Britannico-Hibernica (London:

Gulielmus Bowyer, 1748), 432. 56 A summary of these biographical additions may be found in R. Aubert’s entry on John of Kent

found in the Dictionnaire d'histoire et de géographie ecclésiastiques, vol. 27, ed. A. Baudrillart (Paris:

Letouzey et Ané, 1912), n. 526. The claim that John of Kent taught law at Paris comes from Rangeard,

who suggested it based on Bale’s claim that John of Kent was the same Franciscan John mentioned in

Eccleston and Matthew Paris. See P. Rangeard. Histoire de l'université d'Angers, vol. 2 (Angers: E.

Barassé, 1872), 114-7. 57 Professor James Carley expressed to me in a personal conversation that Bale’s claim that John of

Kent became a Franciscan is not reliable.

44

mentioned in Matthew Paris’s description of the first English Franciscans.58 However, this

connection is spurious. A. G. Little, who critically edited Eccleston’s chronicle in 1951,

makes no mention of any John of Kent.59 Similarly, I have found no mention of any John of

Kent in Matthew Paris’s writings.60 The connection Bale appears to have made was to

identify Leland’s John of Kent with the Franciscan John de Dya mentioned in Eccleston’s

chronicle.61 It was from this point that all the various claims about John’s activities as a

Franciscan came.

In conclusion then, Leland’s entry on John of Kent, and only Leland’s entry, remains the

best evidence for biographical information about John of Kent, from which there are four

main points of information. First, John of Kent spent his adolescence in England, where he

began his education. Second, he then went to France, where he studied and practiced law.

Third, he then became a canon at Saint Mary’s, Angers. Fourth, it was when he was at

Angers that he authored at least the first two books of the Summa.

58 “Ioannes Cantianus, sic illum Lelandus cognominat, post Simonem merito locandus occurit, tum

quod illius synchronus, licet eo aliquanto iunior, tum quod eiusdem comitatus alumnus sit. Bonam

in puero indolem uidentes illi, qui ei ab ipsius natiuitate fauebant, ante pubertatis annos in literis

educandum ac docendum procurabant. Cumque bonis artibus et moribus probe fuisset institutus

(Lelandi uerbis utor) relicta patria et scholis in quibus adolescens creuit, iam uiriles attingens annos,

Galliam Aquitanicam petiit.: ubi et placita legum causidicus non improbandus excutiebat. fuitque

postea Canonicus Andegauensis ecclesiae, in fano Diuae Mariae uirgini sacro: quo tempore, in

studiis quietus edidit, De casibus iuris, Lib. 2; Rubricas quoque, Lib. 1; Et alia id genus plura.

Demum ad Franciscanorum institutum conuersus, anno a Christi incarnatione 1247, inter illos

consenuit, sub Henrico tertio, ut author est Thomas Eckleston, in libro suo de aduentu Minorum ad

Angliam.” Bale, Scriptorum illustrium maioris Brytanniae, v. Ioannes Cantianus. 59 See Eccleston, De adventu fratrum minorum in Angliam, ed. A. G. Little (Manchester: Manchester

University Press, 1951). 60 See Luard’s index to all the men named John: Matthew Paris, Chronica Majora, ed. H. R. Luard, vol.

7: Index. (London: Longmans, 1883), 341. See also J. C. Russell, Dictionary of writers of 13th century

England (London: Longmans, 1936), 59. 61 See Little’s note on John de Dya in Eccleston, De adventu fratrum minorum in Angliam, p. 91, n. s.

45

3.3 THE THIRD BOOK OF THE SUMMA

In light of this evidence from Leland, it must be concluded that John of Kent’s Summa was

originally composed of two books only. This is confirmed by the two extant manuscripts

which contain only the first two books. Given that the fragments of the Summa in the

Emmanuel College manuscript were likely copied from the same manuscript that Leland

saw, the attribution to John of Kent in that manuscript can only be extended to the first two

books of the Summa. As well, book three has its own prologue and was copied in the

Grenoble manuscript without the first two books of the Summa. Royal 9.A.XIV is the only

extant manuscript that contains all three books together.

However, while book three was certainly composed separately, it can be reasonably

concluded that it was authored by the same John of Kent. The evidence for this comes in

part from its stylistic and thematic content, and in part from Royal 9.A.XIV. As with books

one and two, books three remains heavily indebted to Flamborough’s Liber poenitentialis. It

was from Flamborough, who is reproduced at length throughout books one and two, that

John of Kent knew of the unique dialogue format that forms the basis of book three.

Additionally, the content of book three is often foreshadowed in books one and two. For

instance, when John of Kent depicted the confessor questioning the penitent as to whether

he assaulted a cleric, he incorporated the same material found in book one.62 There is also

nothing about the style of the Latin composition to suggest the books had different authors.

Thus, the prologue in Royal 9.A.XIV, which explains how all three books are part of the

same work, can be taken at face value and that all three books were intended as a single

work.

Although the conclusion stands that John of Kent composed all three books, it remains a

fact that book three could be, and was, read and copied independently, and likewise for

books one and two together. This is not uncommon among medieval legal and pastoral

62 John of Kent, Summa, 1.571-88 vs. 3.777-87.

46

texts. Book nineteen of Burchard’s Decretum was read and copied independent of the rest of

the text, so too book eleven of Anselm of Lucca’s Collectio canonum. Regarding the date of

the composition of book three, it seems reasonable to conclude that it was composed later

than books one and two, but this, and most other details of the composition process, can

only be speculated about.

3.4 TITLE AND ADDRESSEE

The surviving manuscripts do not offer a title for the complete work. Assigning a proper

title thus becomes the editor’s responsibility. Manuscript R (Royal 9.A.XIV), which contains

all three books of the Summa, begins with the rubric Prologus subsequentis operis. It opens the

first book with Capitula primi libri and the third book with the rubric Incipit pars tercia de

modo confessionis. It ends the text with Amen. Explicit. Manuscript G (Grenoble, Bibliothèque

Municipale MS 843) contains the third book only and considers it a separate work. It begins

with Incipit prologus in tractatu de confessione and ends with Explicit summa de confessione.

While Summa or Tractatus de confessione would be an appropriate title for the third book, it is

not fitting for all three books together. As well, while Leland’s title Summa de casibus is an

appropriate title for the first two books, it is not fitting for all three books together.

When Father Boyle found the complete, but anonymous text in R, he described it as a Liber

penitentialis.63 When Joseph Goering later discovered the author of R was John of Kent, he

found numerous lost copies of John of Kent’s manual in several manuscript catalogues.

These catalogue entries offer further suggestions for an appropriate title. As mentioned

above, there were two copies of a Summa magistri Iohannis de Cancia at Ramsey Abbey. There

was another Summa Mag. J. de Cantia de penitentia at Peterborough Abbey. Also at

Peterborough Abbey there was a Summa cum aliis rebus written by M. J. Cantia which may

have corresponded to the Summa Mag. J. de Cancia de decretis in the library matricularium.

63 L. Boyle, A study of the works attributed to William of Pagula with special reference to the Oculus

sacerdotis and Summa summarum, vol. 2, “Appendix: Summae of pastoral theology and Summae

confessorum of English inspiration between 1200 and 1400,” 15.

47

Finally, at the Cistercian Abbey of Meaux there was a Summa magistri Iohannis de Cancia.64

All things considered, the full title used at Peterborough is the most apt description. It was

for this reason that Joseph Goering called it a Summa de penitentia in his 1988 article on the

text. I have adopted the orthography used in this edition and changed this to Summa de

penitencia.

Regarding the addressee, the initial prologue in R does not address the work to anyone

specific. It only lays out the purpose and structure of the work, stating that it intends to

resolve many of the difficult questions that arise in penitential judgment, and that it will

often do so in a free-flowing way. From this it can be deduced that the work was intended

for priests who spent time hearing confessions. However, the first two books could

conceivably be used by anyone interested in its legal and theological content.

There is another prologue found before the third book which addresses the book to a

certain frater karissime who requested that John of Kent provide help on how to conduct a

penitential examination. It is unknown who this frater is, but John of Kent does mention a

common master (magister noster), suggesting it is a specific person. There are no further

details given about this addressee, although he can be surmised to have been a cleric.

Additionally, John of Kent mentions several regulations in book three which he says

laymen should not be told about.65 This suggests that he did not expect this book to be read

by the laity. The third book likewise begins and ends with specific instructions for how

clerics should greet the penitent, not the other way around. The conclusion then emerges

that the third book certainly, and probably the first two books, were designed to be read by

clerics, not the laity.

64 Bell, The libraries of the Cistercians, Gilbertines and Premonstratensians, 64. 65 John of Kent, Summa, 3.787.

48

3.5 DATE OF COMPOSITION

John of Kent frequently drew from Robert of Flamborough’s Liber poenitentialis, which was

finished by 1213. This is the most important source text for the Summa de penitencia and John

of Kent could not have begun composition without it. Nonetheless, there were several

redactions of Robert’s Liber poenitentialis which were composed over the course of a few

years.66 It is possible John of Kent had access to an earlier version, composed 1208-1213. This

establishes an initial terminus a quo of 1208.

There are numerous references to contemporary synods and councils that assist in

establishing a stricter terminus a quo. A reference is made to the synod of Paris held in 1213,

and of Rouen held in the following year.67 However, the most useful references are those to

the Lateran Council of 1215. These provide the surest date for a terminus a quo. There are at

least eight references to the council, scattered throughout the first and second books.68 The

references refer to the council as having occurred recently, with it referred to as a “new

council”69 and its canons a “new constitution”.70 It is possible these references were later

refinements, and that John of Kent begun composing the text before the council.71 However,

select portions of the Summa are heavily dependent on the council’s legislation, especially

the sections on marriage laws. If the Summa was begun before the council, whole sections of

it were certainly written after the council.72 The Fourth Lateran Council took place in

66 Robert of Flamborough, Liber poenitentialis, ed. J. J. F. Firth (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of

Mediaeval Studies, 1971), 8-9. 67 John of Kent, Summa, 1.928. See also PL 212.66. 68 John of Kent, Summa, 1.918-9; 1.997-9; 2.201; 2.220; 2.348; 2.755-57; 2.791. 69 “Nouum concilium.” John of Kent, Summa, 2.220. 70 “Nouam constitucionem.” John of Kent, Summa, 2.201. 71 Goering, “The Summa de penitentia of John of Kent,” 24-5. 72 There are two interesting discrepancies between the manuscripts that may suggest that the

composition of the Summa was begun before the council. In Summa 2.201, manuscript R refers to a

new custom (consuetudinem nouam) but L and O refer to a new constitution (constitucionem nouam).

This is in the context of the marriage regulations of Lateran IV, which were recently made into law

rather than custom. This could have been a simple scribal error, however another such discrepancy

occurs in Summa 1.332. R refers to a canon from Lateranum primum concilium, the medieval way of

referring to Lateran III. However, L and O refer to it only as the Lateranum concilium, the way of

referring to that council before Lateran IV made it the first Lateran council.

49

November of 1215, meaning that the Summa would have gained its final form in 1216 at the

earliest.

There are numerous other authors named explicitly in the text. Many, like Peter the

Chanter, were active in the twelfth century, but there are several theological and canonical

sources from the early part of the thirteenth century. Two of them, Tancredus and Peter of

Poitiers, deserve examination as they could prove that the Summa was composed later than

1216.

Tancredus was younger than John of Kent, and just beginning his bright career when John

of Kent was composing the Summa. Tancredus was born in Bologna around 1185 and

studied under Laurentius Hispanus and other jurists mentioned in John of Kent’s Summa.73

He wrote recensions of his apparatus to the Compilationes prima and secunda between 1210

and 1215, and finished his apparatus to the Compilatio tertia between 1220 and 1225. If it can

be shown John of Kent was using Tancredus’s apparatus to the Compilatio tertia, then John of

Kent must have completed his Summa a few years later than the currently established

terminus a quo of 1216. In the current state of scholarship, there are no modern editions or

accessible manuscripts of Tancred’s apparatus. As such, a final answer to this question can

only be surmised here.

John of Kent explicitly cites Tancredus three times in the Summa.74 A citation is found in

book 2, line 70 which provides the best possibility that John of Kent knew of Tancredus’s

apparatus to the Compilatio tertia. This section deals with questions of marriage and deceit.

73 Pennington, “The decretalists 1190-1234,” in HMCL, 237. 74 Two of these times likely come from Tancredus’ apparatus to decretals found in the Compilationes

prima and secunda. Another possible citation is found when the Summa discusses religious vows.

Only manuscript R attributes the opinion to Tancredus (Tancredo). Manuscripts L and O attribute it to

Peter the Chanter (Cantori). I have been unable to locate this reference in the works of Peter the

Chanter and it likely comes from Tancredus’s gloss to a decretal of Clement III found in the

Compilatio secunda (Comp. II, 3.18.4). Consequently, these citations do not challenge the currently

established terminus a quo of 1216.

50

John of Kent offers the opinion of John of Wales and Tancredus together, who each

commented on the Compilationes secunda and tertia. Surmising from the nature of their joint

opinion, they are likely commenting on one of two decretals. The first is a decretal of

Innocent III found in the Compilatio tertia.75 The second is a decretal of Celestine III found in

the Compilatio secunda.76 An investigation into the manuscripts of Tancredus would resolve

this issue, which has the potential to shift the final date of composition to the early 1220s.

However, it seems most prudent to tentatively assume the decretal is the one from Celestine

III found in the Compilatio secunda, and to leave the terminus a quo at 1216.

There are two sections where John of Kent appears to reproduce the text of Peter of

Poitiers’s Liber poenitentialis.77 He never cites Peter by name, so it is possible both authors

were drawing from a common third source. When Father Teetaert examined Peter’s

manual, he estimated it was written c. 1210 – 1215.78 Cheney disagreed with this assessment,

and asserted that it postdated the Lateran IV Council, proposing that it was written c. 1215 -

1220.79 If John of Kent was in fact drawing from Peter, and if the Liber poenitentialis was

written in the later part of Cheney’s timeframe, then John of Kent’s Summa should also be

dated to later than 1216. However, due to the tentative nature of these multiple

suppositions, it is most prudent not to alter the previously established terminus a quo of

1216.

An initial terminus ante quem can be established at 1245 by the date of the Peterborough

Abbey inventory mentioned above. However, this terminus can be narrowed down further.

John of Kent was keen to provide the most recent canonical material, and it is significant

that certain legal collections were not employed, particularly the Liber extra published in

75 Comp. III, 4.11.1 (X 4.15.6). 76 Comp. II, 4.9.3 (X 4.15.5). 77 John of Kent, Summa, 1.47-53; 1.944-8. 78 A. Teetaert, “Le Liber poenitentialis de Pierre de Poitiers,” in Aus der Geisteswelt des Mittelalters, ed. J.

Lechner et al. (Münster: Aschendorff, 1935), 310-331. 79 C. R. Cheney, “La date de la composition du Liber poenitentialis attribué à Pierre de Poitiers,” RTAM

9 (1937): 401–404.

51

1234.80 More precisely, the Compilatio quinta was never used. This was compiled by

Tancredus in 1226, and John of Kent would surely have incorporated it had he known about

it. Furthermore, John of Kent does not use the Compilatio quarta composed 1216-17. He

probably did not know about it, although he may have avoided using it since it was often

held in suspicion.81 He additionally did not use the glosses to the canons of Lateran IV

composed at the same time by Johannes Teutonicus. One keeps expecting him to use

Thomas Chobham’s manual composed c. 1215-6, but I have found no evidence that he knew

of this manual by his contemporary.82

Taking stock of the situation, what can be concluded about the dating of John of Kent’s

Summa? It can be said with certainty that the Summa was completed after the Lateran

council of November of 1215. The composition may have begun earlier, but not before

Flamborough’s Liber poenitentialis written c. 1208-13. The Summa was surely completed

before the Compilatio quinta in 1226. Apart from the qualifications already made regarding

Tancredus and Peter of Poitiers, none of John of Kent’s materials sources post-date the

Fourth Lateran Council. A convergence thus forms around c. 1216. This is the most

probable date for the completion of John of Kent’s Summa de penitencia.83

3.6 STRUCTURE

The Summa de penitencia is divided into three books. John of Kent stated in the prologue that

each book will be divided up into chapters and rubrics. The first book will deal with things

pertaining especially to priests, such as certain sacraments, excommunication, orders and

80 In the Emmanuel College manuscript, there is a single allegatio to the Liber extra. My conclusion is

that this was a later marginal note that was then placed within the main body of the text by a later

scribe. Thus, it does not impact the dating here discussed. This issue will be discussed in detail in

chapter 4.4. 81 Pennington, “The decretalists: 1190-1234,” 236. 82 See Chobham, Summa Confessorum, xl-lxii. 83 This is within the range of dates proposed by Goering, who determined it may have been begun as

early as 1212 (the later of Flamborough’s recensions), but completed certainly by 1220. See Goering,

“The Summa de penitentia of John of Kent,” 25.

52

simony. The second book will deal with things pertaining especially to the laity, such as

marriage, vows, tithes and oaths. The third book will explain the way confessors are to

examine the penitent, which penances are to be assigned to which sins, and other matters

that arise in the confessional. John of Kent also stated that nearly everything asserted in the

Summa is confirmed by decrees or decretals, or by the commentary of the great doctors of

canon law

There are several notable aspects of the manual’s structure. The first is the separation of

priestly and lay topics into their own books. This separation is not a common method of

division.84 In other manuals, such as Robert of Flamborough’s, there are books dedicated

solely to marriage or solely to orders. The decretal collections used by John of Kent were

likewise divided by topics that partially lend themselves to a separation of clerical and lay

topics—with a section devoted to clerics, but no corresponding section explicitly to the

laity.85 However, John of Kent made the separation between clerical and lay explicit.86 It is

not stated what his purpose was. The only rationale given is when he says that clerical

issues will be dealt with first because they are more difficult.87 Still, there is an

inherent logic to this structure, dealing with the clergy first, the laity second, and lastly their

point of contact in the confessional.

84 Regino of Prüm (d. 915) is one of few other writers who divided his work (De ecclesiasticis

disciplinis) into sections devoted to the laity and clergy. Regino of Prüm, De ecclesiasticis disciplinis (PL

132.185-400). 85 The famous organizing verse iudex, iudicium, clerus, connubia, crimen was first used in Bernard of

Pavia’s Summa decretalium. It was adopted by later decretal collections. See A. Duggan, “Conciliar

law 1123-1215,” in HMCL, 353. 86 In the manuscript tradition, there is one exception to this, British Library MS Royal 5.A.I, which

states that the second book is about marriage, not the laity. This manuscript does not say what the

first book is about. 87 As the Summa is not a simple reference manual to be used during confession, John of Kent was not

trying to make the manual more easily referred to depending on whether a cleric or layman came to

confessional. The division could be intended to emphasize the theological differences between clergy

and laity. The distinction between clergy and laity was of immense interest to the scholastics. Much

of the modern theology of ordination and the priesthood is an inheritance from this period. See S.

Klumpenhouwer, “The deaconess: new sources in medieval pastoralia,” Logos 21 (2018): 15-35.

53

The second aspect of note is the various scholastic genres used to present the material,

especially questiones.88 These are typically introduced by the phrase queritur utrum or

equivalents thereof. The genre of questiones is a broad and fertile one, and was used by both

theologians and jurists. One type of questio grew out of classroom exercises, the questiones

disputate. Another originated as a glossatorial technique, the questiones decretales.89 In both

cases, the questiones contained some doubtful or controversial matter that required a

dialectical argumentation. In the case of classroom exercises, the questio could be raised

more as a means of catechesis than a means of arriving at a yet-unknown solution.

John of Kent used the questio in various ways. Occasionally he presented the issue in a ‘pro

et contra’ schema, listing support for both sides of the issue. Other times the questio was

resolved either by raising a distinction (distinguo) or bringing into the discussion something

not yet considered (notandum quod). At times a questio was raised as a way of presenting the

information, regardless of whether it was controversial. Elsewhere the questio was a real

question, not simply a didactic or organizational tool. In this final case, John of Kent

sometimes included his own position, but the questio was often left without a firm

resolution. This open-ended nature is a striking characteristic of the Summa. John of Kent

did not compose it purely for didactic purposes, but as a contribution to current juridical

debates happening in the schools and among the glossators.

A third aspect of note is the priest/penitent dialogue format used in book three. John of

Kent knew of the dialogue format from Robert of Flamborough, who was the first of the

manualists to employ it. Whereas Robert incorporated the format throughout his Liber

poenitentialis, John of Kent confined the dialogue to the third book of his Summa. In the first

88 John of Kent also used the genre of notabilia, structured in a similar way to his use of questiones. For

a further discussion on the genre of notabilia, see Pennington and Müller, “The decretists: the Italian

school,” 162-3. 89 For a further description of the genre of questiones, see Kuttner and Rathbone, “Anglo-Norman

canonists of the twelfth century: an introductory study,” 312-3. See also Pennington and Müller, “The

decretists: the Italian school,” 164-70.

54

two books, even when John of Kent drew from sections of dialogue in Robert’s Liber

poenitentialis, he converted that dialogue into plain prose. For both authors, the use of the

format was natural enough, given that both were offering information and advice about the

confessional, where there would be an actual dialogue between priest and penitent.

The scholastic genre of questiones could be easily converted into priest/penitent dialogue.

While the first two books of the Summa are organized using scholastic genres and the third

book by a priest/penitent dialogue, the effect is often the same. In books one and two a topic

is frequently raised by the phrase queritur utrum; in the third book this question is put in the

mouth of the priest. For instance, in book one, chapter twelve, John of Kent asked, “How

many exceptions does this rule have: ‘he who strikes a cleric is excommunicated’?” In book

three this same issue is raised by the priest, who first asks the penitent: “Did you violently

assault another person?” In both cases an opportunity arises for John of Kent to present the

same information.

There is some evidence that this comparison between questiones and the dialogue format is

not only a matter of similarity, but that John of Kent’s use of the dialogue format grew

directly out of the genre of questiones. Evidence for this is found in an odd paragraph in

book three of the Summa (lines 83-93). John of Kent opened with the line “Concerning lust, it

is asked with how many married people he had relations before his own marriage, with

how many after his marriage....” The paragraph then continues with numerous short

sentences beginning with utrum, which lay out various scenarios the penitent might have

been involved in. The odd nature of this paragraph is that it is not formatted as a dialogue

like much of book three. All that would be needed to make it a dialogue would be to put

those same questions in the mouth of the priest. As it stands, the paragraph begins with a

question phrased in the third person, that is, in same way as the questiones of books one and

two. The following utrum phrases are simply variants of the same question. The paragraph

appears to be a remnant of John of Kent’s original outline for book three. As such, John of

55

Kent would have begun with specific questiones that were then converted, easily enough,

into a priest/penitent dialogue.

3.7 SOURCES

Robert of Flamborough

John of Kent’s most common material source is Robert of Flamborough’s Liber poenitentialis.

Flamborough, a fellow Englishman, was a canon regular at the Abbey of Saint-Victor and

was among the so-called circle of Peter the Chanter at Paris. Robert held the title of canon-

penitentiary, having been granted special permission by the bishop to hear the confessions

of students. He composed his manual between 1208-13.90 There is no direct evidence that

the two manualists knew each other personally.

Robert of Flamborough’s manual is one of the earliest examples of a new type of handbook

for confessors, which shifted away from the older penitential canons and incorporated the

most recent developments in canon law and theology.91 As mentioned, Robert was the first

to experiment with a new structural formation, the priest/penitent dialogue seen

throughout his manual. The project was a marvelous success and provided the main

inspiration for John of Kent’s manual. Large sections of Robert’s Liber poenitentialis are used

throughout the first two books of the Summa de penitencia. These sections are sometimes

adopted verbatim. Other times John of Kent makes various modifications. These

modifications entail altering the grammar or structure of the text, such as converting

Robert’s dialogue into plain prose.92 Elsewhere John of Kent summarizes, elaborates or

clarifies portions of the Liber poenitentialis. Occasionally there is disagreement between the

two authors, and John of Kent changed the text of the Liber poenitentialis to match his own

viewpoint.93

90 Firth, ed., Liber poenitentialis, 1-6. 91 Kuttner, “Pierre de Roissy and Robert of Flamborough,” 492-99. 92 John of Kent, Summa, 2.546-51. 93 Ibid., 1.673-8.

56

Whenever Robert of Flamborough is used, it is always done without citation. The only

partial exception is when John of Kent adopts a passage from the Liber poenitentialis and

presents it as an unstated person’s view by adding the phrase secundum quosdam, with

quosdam referring to Robert.94 A similar situation is when John of Kent changes the dico

found in the Liber poenitentialis to dicunt.95 However, these changes in number are not

consistent, and sometimes the dico is left as such in the Summa.96 It does not seem to be the

case that John of Kent reproduced the original dico only when he agreed with Robert and

the dicunt when he disagreed.

Concerning the structure of each manual, there are points of difference and similarity.

Robert divided his manual into five books, with priest/penitent dialogues scattered

throughout. John of Kent has three books, with the dialogue used solely in the third. John of

Kent deals with clerical issues before marriage issues, while Robert does the opposite.

However, on the smaller scale the discussion of issues often progresses uniformly, as is

immediately evident when comparing the chapter indices. As well, John of Kent sometimes

quotes verbatim organizing sentences from Liber poenitentialis which refer to other parts of

Robert’s manual. These sentences still make sense when transposed into John of Kent’s

manual.97

The third book of the Summa presents an interesting problem. Book three is almost

completely taken up with a priest/penitent dialogue like the one in Robert of Flamborough.

However, unlike books one and two, I have not found a single place in book three where

John of Kent adopts Robert’s text verbatim, despite often dealing with the same material.

There is one passage where the phrase dicunt quidam likely refers to Robert,98 but otherwise

John of Kent wrote the third book without drawing verbatim from the Liber poenitentialis.

94 Ibid., 2.102. 95 Ibid., 1.744; See Goering, “The Summa de penitentia of John of Kent,” 26, n. 50. 96 John of Kent, Summa, 1.141. 97 Ibid., 1.753. 98 Ibid., 3.202.

57

Nonetheless, John of Kent’s manual was in many ways a revision and updating of Robert’s

Liber poenitentialis. John of Kent’s manual is structured in a more streamlined fashion,

rendering it more easily consulted. He likewise updated it with the latest canonical

developments, whether the canons of Lateran IV or various apparatus to the first three

Compilationes antiquae. However, the Summa is not primarily an effort to revise or update the

Liber poenitentialis, and John of Kent would certainly not have viewed his project as such.

Robert had offered something innovative, a new type of pastoral manual that used useful

didactic tools, particularly the priest/penitent dialogue. John of Kent and others were

inspired by this new development, eager to see what they could create with these new

tools.99 Robert of Flamborough was not a magisterial authority to them, and his manual was

used as a type of open-source material, free for others to modify as they pleased.

Bernard of Pavia

The second most used material source is Bernard of Pavia’s Summa decretalium. Robert of

Flamborough likewise used Bernard as a material source, but to a lesser degree than John of

Kent. Bernard studied and taught at Bologna, where he was a student of the great Huguccio

and himself became a star of the Bolognese school. In 1191, he was made bishop of Faenza.

He is best known for inaugurating the age of the decretalists.100

Large portions of Bernard’s Summa decretalium may be found throughout the first and

second books of John of Kent’s manual. These sections are often interwoven with sections of

Robert of Flamborough. Typically, if John of Kent thought a section from Robert should be

expanded upon, a section from Bernard was then offered to provide a fuller discussion of

the matter. As with Robert of Flamborough, Bernard is never cited by name, even though

John of Kent frequently names other canonists who were less authoritative than him, some

of whom were themselves students of Bernard. Regardless, John of Kent felt free to modify

99 For other manuals inspired by Flamborough, see Kuttner, “Pierre de Roissy and Robert of

Flamborough,” 494. 100 Pennington, “The decretalists: 1190-1234,” 211.

58

Bernard’s text in the same ways seen with Robert of Flamborough. However, there are

fewer examples of his disagreeing directly with Bernard. The examples of disagreement

that can be found are typically over marriage issues where John of Kent followed the new

legislation of Lateran IV which Bernard did not live to see.101

Peter the Chanter and his Circle

Peter the Chanter is cited explicitly several times in the Summa. He was considered a great

authority by John of Kent, and a whole section is dedicated to offering “the opinion of the

Chanter on simony and its types.”102 The Chanter’s opinions are mostly contained in the

sections dealing with simony, usury and extreme unction. Robert of Flamborough also used

the Chanter as a material source, but John of Kent expanded on this use. John of Kent

primarily draws from the Chanter’s Summa de sacramentis, but he also knew of the Verbum

abbreviatum, although he rarely used it as a material source.

The Chanter is usually cited by the phrase dicit Cantor or secundum Cantorem. His name is

often abbreviated to can, which can cause confusion in the manuscript tradition as

canonem/canones is abbreviated the same way.103 On one occasion his name is confused with

Tancredus, with one manuscript containing a citation to Cantori, and two others to

Tancredo.104 The theologos mentioned in the rubric of book two, chapter twenty-two, and the

magister in book one, chapter ten likely refer to the Chanter.

As mentioned in the previous chapter, Peter the Chanter and his circle were well versed in

theology and the most recent canon law, especially as they related to practical morality.105

They placed an emphasis on sacramental theology, particularly the sacrament of penance.106

101 See John of Kent, Summa, 2.176-202 and Bernard of Pavia, Summa decretalium (Regensburg: Joseph

Manz, 1860), IV.14.1-8. 102 John of Kent, Summa, 1, ch. 10. 103 Ibid., 1.691. 104 Ibid., 2.607. 105 See Baldwin, Masters, princes, and merchants: the social views of Peter the Chanter and his circle, 7, 17. 106 Ibid., 47-59.

59

These texts were fertile sources for John of Kent’s manual. Other men of the Chanter’s circle

who are explicitly cited are Gerard Pucelle107 and Maurice Sully, bishop of Paris.108 John of

Kent also uses, without citation, the works of Robert Courson,109 Gerald of Wales110 and

perhaps Peter of Poitiers.111 In the Emmanuel College manuscript there are explicit citations

to Lanfranc and Pope Innocent III.112 One might expect to see John of Kent use the

immensely popular manual of Thomas Chobham, also from the Chanter’s circle, but I have

found no evidence he was aware of it.

Canon and Roman Law

John of Kent was well versed in canon law and his manual is filled with references to legal

texts, whether the Decretum and the decretal collections, or to the many jurists commenting

on them. As the prologue states, nearly everything asserted in the Summa is confirmed by

decrees or decretals, or by the commentary of the great jurists of canon law. John of Kent

additionally incorporates recent legislation from synods and councils. These come

particularly from Lateran IV, but also Lateran III and the synods of Paris and Rouen.113 As

will be explained later in chapter 4.4, the manual originally contained many legal

allegationes. These were then removed, but with the content otherwise left intact.

John of Kent often drew from Gratian’s Decretum, but cites it in various ways. Sometimes

the Decretum is cited by the phrases secundum canones or in decretis. Other times it was used

as a repository of spiritual texts, especially for Saint Augustine (and pseudo-Augustine),

Saint Gregory and other Church fathers. Here the passages are introduced by phrases such

107 John of Kent, Summa, 2.988; the Pub found in ibid., 2.584 likely refers to Gerard Pucelle, see

Goering, “The Summa de penitentia of John of Kent,” 26, no. 34. MS R reads ‘Pul’ which could be a

form of ‘Girardus pul.’ See Kuttner and Rathbone, “Anglo-Norman canonists of the twelfth century:

an introductory study,” 296-303, 343. 108 John of Kent, Summa, 1.948. 109 Ibid., 2.970. 110 Ibid., 1.1016-21. 111 Ibid., 1.47-53; 1.944-8. 112 See appendix A. 113 Ibid., 1.332; 1.928.

60

Augustinus dicens or variants thereof.114 The dicta of Gratian are used and cited in a manner

similar to other jurists (secundum Gracianum).115 Portions of the De penitentia are often used,

but not with more frequency than other sections of the Decretum.

John of Kent drew from the first three of the Compilationes antiquae. He also used the canons

of Lateran IV, but he knew of them from a different source than the Compilatio quarta.

Additionally, John of Kent was familiar with numerous other unidentified canon law

collections and legal commentaries.116 For example, in his section on the Eucharist he

mentions a controversy over a certain canon in the Decretum that some people were using to

defend the practice of giving the Eucharist to children. In the Emmanuel College

manuscript, which contains the original allegationes, this is cited as D.2 De con. c.93, which

only mentions offering the Eucharist to the sick.117 Some manuscripts of the Decretum

apparently had an additional note about children. However, John of Kent had studied

numerous manuscripts of the text and says this note is a corruption, and that it is not in

many copies of the Decretum.118

The most frequently cited names in the Summa are canonists who wrote apparatus to various

decretal compilations. Laurencius Hispanus,119 Ricardus Anglicus,120 Vincencius

114 Ibid., 1.40; 1.383-6, 467-9; 2.424-9. 115 Ibid., 2.474-5. 116 John of Kent was well versed in the most recent canonical discussions. For example, in his

treatment of voluntary homicide, he mentions a certain decretal that said it could be dispensed with

by the pope, but adds that this decretal is not received (presumably in the schools of canon law). See

ibid., 1.161. 117 See appendix A. 118 “De pueris qui non intelligunt quid accipiunt, puta infra septennium, michi uidetur sanius non

dare eis, licet quidam contra per quoddam decretum quod dicit pueris dandam esse eucharistiam.

Set littera que ibi inseritur calumpniam habet, non enim est in multis decretis.” John of Kent, Summa,

1.981-6. 119 Ibid., 1.689; 2.679, 729, 746. 120 Ibid., 1.712-3.

61

Hispanus,121 Albertus,122 Johannes Galensis,123 Tancredus124 and Alanus Anglicus125 all make

appearances in the first two books. It is not evident whether John of Kent had access to each

of their apparatus, or knew of them only through a glossed Decretum or decretal collection.

Huguccio’s name is cited twice for his commentary on the Decretum.126 Robert of

Flamborough also used Huguccio extensively, and Huguccio’s opinions frequently make

their way into the Summa indirectly through Flamborough. However, John of Kent also

drew from Huguccio independently. While John of Kent often cited these canonists by

name, he frequently incorporated their glosses without citation.

John of Kent incorporated Roman law several times into the Summa. Azo is the only Roman

jurist cited by name.127 Normally the use of Roman law is signaled by the words secundum

leges. These usually refer to portions of the Digest, but also to the Institutiones and Novellae. It

is unclear to what extent John of Kent knew the Roman law directly or only through its

inclusion in Bernard of Pavia’s Summa decretalium.128

Various other sources:

Several of the older penitential tariffs which ascribe specific penances for specific sins are

found at the end of book one. John of Kent knew of these particular tariffs through Gratian,

Robert of Flamborough, and perhaps Burchard of Worms. The canons are presented

without comment or qualification. John of Kent, like Flamborough, still considered them

useful, as he explains in the final pages of book three.

121 Ibid., 1.911; 2.757. 122 Ibid., 2.694, 980, 1042. 123 Ibid., 2.70. 124 Ibid., 2.70; 2.483, 507, 607. 125 Ibid., 2.486, 720, 734. 126 Ibid., 2.146, 710. 127 Ibid., 2.483. 128 Ibid., 2.359-60.

62

John of Kent frequently cites various passages from the Bible. Sometimes they are cited

indirectly through another material source, other times directly. In one instance, the biblical

gloss is cited.129 However, Peter the Chanter is the material source for that passage and the

Chanter also includes the same gloss. I have found no passage where John of Kent is

certainly drawing from the biblical gloss independently.

There are many anonymous writers who appear throughout the Summa. In one place, the

opinio antiquorum is given, which is a summary of the many patristic names mentioned in

one of Gratian’s dicta.130 More typically, these anonymous sources are referred to as quidam

dicunt, quidam contradicunt, alii dicunt or variants thereof. Sometimes I have been able to

determine the exact person or persons being referred to. They are usually canonists,

whether from the list of names already given, or other unnamed jurists. In at least one

instance there is a secundum quosdam which refers to Robert of Flamborough.131 In other

cases, John of Kent himself may not have known who the citation referred to, such as when

he reproduces it verbatim from one of his material sources.132

129 Ibid., 1.424. 130 Ibid., 1.109. 131 See Ibid., 1.718 where the intelligo of Flamborough is changed to intelligunt in John of Kent. 132 See Ibid., 2.152.

63

CHAPTER 4

Introduction to the Edition

4.1 THE TEXTUAL WITNESSES

There are five extant manuscripts containing John of Kent’s Summa de penitencia. Four are

found in English libraries, and one in Grenoble, France. I have examined all manuscripts in

situ.1

A list of manuscripts:

C Cambridge, Emmanuel College MS 83, fols. 200r-201v, 204r-209v, s. xiii

G Grenoble, Bibliothèque Municipale MS 843, fols. 118r-130r, s. xiii

L London, British Library MS Royal 5.A.I, fols. 63v-89r, s. xiii

O Oxford, University College MS 58, fols. 212ra-217vb, s. xiii

R London, British Library MS Royal 9.A.XIV, fols. 203va-232vb, s. xiii

1 In the 1980s Joseph Goering found and compiled the list of five manuscripts, helped in part by

Bloomfield’s aids for finding manuscripts of pastoral texts. In the decades since, various other

finding aids have become available, especially for English manuscripts, and largely thanks to the

work of Richard Sharpe. However, these have not led to the discovery of more extant English

manuscripts. For manuscripts on the continent, the finding aids are less comprehensive, but digital

search tools have greatly improved our ability to locate them. Regardless, no additional continental

manuscripts have been discovered, and none that are connected to Saint Mary’s, Angers.

64

4.2 MANUSCRIPT DESCRIPTIONS

This section will provide manuscripts descriptions which are focused on the sections

containing John of Kent’s Summa de penitencia. Several additional notes that do not belong in

the manuscript descriptions will be given in the following section.

Grenoble, Bibliothèque Municipale, MS 843

Parchment, Latin, 212 folios, 92 x 72 mm, s. XIII, France(?)

Miscellaneous religious tracts and sermons

2nd folio incipit: -mis maneret audiuit

This is a small codex of 212 folios measuring 92 x 72 mm, with a writing space of 80 x

60mm, all written in single columns. It is bound in a modern binding of pasteboard covered

with orange leather, overlaid with varied coloured paper that covers the outer two thirds of

the front and back boards. There are four raised bands. Paper pastedowns at the front and

back. One outer paper flyleaf is located at the front and back each. Another two parchment

flyleaves are in the front. Collation: iii + 1–910 + 108 + 11–1912 + 206 + i.

Folios 118v-130v, which contain John of Kent’s Summa de penitencia, have 25 lines per page.

They are written in a small, very precise littera semi-textualis (grade: media/formata), with a

single compartment a, uncrossed tironian et, and written below top line. There are almost

no corrections or marginal notations.

The manuscript has six different ruling patterns for the various tracts, ranging from 18 to 28

lines per page, all in single columns. Lines are pricked before gathering and ruled in pencil.

Brown ink is used, with all rubrics in red. The final quire was not part of the original

production, having been added sometime later in the Middle Ages. This quire has an index

on folios 210r-211r of all the sermons and tracts. There are almost no corrections or marginal

notations throughout the manuscript. There are no catchwords, but the quires are

numbered with Roman numerals in the bottom center, written in a contemporary hand.

65

Often these numerals are cut off completely or partially. Folios are tracked by Arabic

numerals in the upper right corner of each recto, written in a modern hand.

Near the top of the spine a paper sticker reads “MS 843.” On the front paper pastedown, in

the upper right corner a modern note also reads “MS. 843.” The following two parchment

flyleaves in the front are recycled from an unknown Latin book of prayers. The first

parchment flyleaf is very worn down and on its recto, under the main block of text, there is

a note in the bottom right corner reading “M’ 843.” A small paper sticker was placed over

the main block of text in the center left of the recto, which reads “Le manuscrit contient / ***

A. B. C. d / 211 numerale ** / Le 10 Iunn* *888”. In the upper corner the letter “A” is written.

On the recto of the second flyleaf the letter “B” is written and at the bottom there is a

circular stamp reading “BIBLIOTHÈQUE DE LA VILLE GRENOBLE,” with a penciled note to the

right reading “MS 843.” The back pastedown is blank, and the final folio is also blank, apart

from the letter “C” written in the center of the recto. The verso of that pastedown is

extremely worn down.

There are very few surviving clues about the provenance of the manuscript. It likely arrived

at the Bibliothèque Municipale de Grenoble after the French Revolution. In 1889, it was

catalogued during a comprehensive survey taken of French municipal archives.2 The

manuscript is there listed at no. 455, but it was more recently reclassified as no. 843. The

editor of the 1889 catalogue suggested the Grande Chartreuse as its place of origin, but this

cannot be verified. Bloomfield includes the section of the manuscript pertaining to John of

Kent’s Summa in his Incipits of Latin Works on the Virtues and Vices.3

Contents:

1.) Miscellaneous sermons, 1r-107r. This section contains a series of short sermons for Easter

and various feast days. There is usually a rubric in red to indicate on which feast day the

2 P. Fournier, E. Maignien and A. Prudhomme. Catalogue Général des Manuscrits des Bibliothèques

publiques de France, vol. 7: Grenoble (Paris: 1889), no. 455. 3 Bloomfield, Incipits of Latin works on the virtues and vices: 1100- 1500 AD, no. 4381.

66

sermon is to be used. A couple sections from Seneca, written in the same script, are

interspersed. The scribe frequently changes and often only writes a single sermon. The text

is all written in a littera semi-textualis (grade: media). There is one column of 20-25 lines.

a.) 1r – 3v. untitled

incipit: humiliauit semet ipsum explicit: in superna se euehunt

b.) 3r – 8r in pasca

incipit: hec est dies quam explicit: omnia secula seculorum amen

c.) 8r – 11v in annunciatione dominica

incipit: ecce ancilla domini explicit: omnia secula seculorum amen

d.) 11v – 13v in natali domini sermo

incipit: parvuulus natus est nobis explicit: affixus est pro nobis

e.) 13v – 15r in natali domini

incipit: habitantibus regione umbre explicit: est ymago bonitatis dei

f.) 15r – 17r in natali domini

incipit: ecce euangelizo uobis gaudium explicit: humiliavit quam superbus

g.) 17r – 18v in natali domini

incipit: vobis timentibus nomen explicit: ipsius ne uidet gloriam dei

h.) 18v -21r in circumcisione

incipit: circumcidetur ex uobis explicit: preputia cordium uestorum

i.) 21v – 23r in purificatione

incipit: postquam consumati sunt explicit: nos saluis fieri

j.) 23r – 24v in apparitione

incipit: apparuit benignitas et humilitas explicit: imperium natura mutatur

k.) 24v – 25v in apparitione domini

incipit: apparuit benignitas et humilitas explicit: deum non uidere

l.) 25v – 28r in natiuitate beate uirginis

incipit: ego quasi uitis explicit: omnia secula seculorum amen

m.) 28r – 31r in apparitione

incipit: in hoc apparuit explicit: mundi eicietur foras

67

n.) 31r – 33v in apparitione

incipit: ambulabunt gentes in [?] explicit: ea suscipient te

o.) 33v – 36r in apparitione

incipit: cum natus esset explicit: mereritur eum inuenire

p.) 36r -38r in purificatione

incipit: postquam impleti sunt explicit: est ipsius impletum

q.) 38r – 39v in purificatione

incipit: postquam impleti dies explicit: notauit eum gloriam

r.) 39v – 40r in purificatione

incipit: accepit per symeom explicit: quam nos ad uitam

s.) 40r – 40v in purificatione

incipit: homo erat in ierusalem explicit: non uult morte dissoluet

t.) 41r – 44r in apparitione

incipit: apparuit benignitas et humilitas explicit: omnia secula seculorum amen

u.) 44r – 47v in assumptione beate uirginis

incipit: tenuisti manum dexteram explicit: omnia secula seculorum amen

v.) 47v – 50v in apparitione

incipit: surge illuminare ierusalem explicit: omnia secula seculorum amen

w.) 51r – 54r in festo sancti baptismate[?]

incipit: ecce constitui te hodie explicit : omnia secula seculorum amen

x.) 54r – 57r in festo omnium sanctorum sermo

incipit: gaudemus uiros gloriosos explicit: in secula seculorum amen

y.) 57r – 70v in annunciatione dominica sermo

incipit: aue maria gratia plena explicit: absconditi residebant

z.) 71r – 73v in ascencione domini

incipit: ego rogabo patrem explicit: omnia secula seculorum amen

aa.) 74r – 75v in festo sancti michaelis

incipit: attolite portas principes explicit: frequenter et dicat

bb.) 76r – 78v in festo sancti michaelis

68

incipit: quis enarrauit celorum explicit: deus benedictus in secula

cc.) 79r – 80r untitled

incipit: et eo conuertar ad uos explicit: secula seculorum amen

dd.) 80r – 80v untitled

incipit: aue gloriosa uirginum reginia explicit: sue stimulum celatur

ee.) 81r-81r: untitled

incipit: sancti spiritus adsit nobis gratia explicit: quod multi religi-

ff.) 81v – 81v de senectute Seneca

incipit: satis multum temporis explicit: contempnis hunc restere

gg.) 82r – 88v in die pasche

incipit: maria magdalena et maria explicit: possimus eum inuenire

hh.) 88v – 96r Seneca de paupertate

incipit: honesta res paupertas explicit: anime sumentis significat

ii.) 96r – 98v in annunciatione dominica

incipit: propter nimiam raritatem explicit: benedictus in secula amen

jj.) 99r – 101v in natali domini

incipit: ecce euangelizo uobis explicit: iesus christi filius dei et cetera

kk.) 101v – 107r in natiuitate beate uirginis sermo

incipit: ego quasi uitis fructi explicit: omnia secula seculorum amen

2.) Tractatus de confessione, 107v-115r. This tract is written in littera semi-textualis (grade:

media). The text is in a single column usually of 25 lines.

incipit: frater qui confessiones auditurus explicit: talis modus hibendi

3.) In pentecoste sermo, 115r-118v This sermon is written in littera semi-textualis (grade: media).

The text is in a single column usually of 25 lines.

incipit: surge aquilo et ueni explicit: iehsu christi et cetera

4.) John of Kent’s Tractatus de confessione, 118v-130v. This section is described above in

detail.

incipit: quoniam obstetricante manu explicit: in uinculo caritatis

69

5.) Miscellaneous sermons, 131r-206v. These are written in the same script as above: littera

semi-textualis (grade: media). The text is in a single column usually of 25 -28 lines.

a.) 131r – 132v in circumcisione

incipit: circumcidetur omne masculinum explicit: putabant omne crucifixus est

b.) 132v – 133r untitled

incipit: montes israel ramos explicit: erit firma [?]

c.) 133v – 135v untitled

incipit: ambula coram me explicit: qui uiuit et regnat

d.) 135v – 138r sermo in xl

incipit: ecce do coram uobis explicit: fugiebat ad desertam

e.) 138r – 142r item alius sermo

incipit: vocem qui pareturientis audiui explicit: per omnia secula seculorum

f.) 142r – 153r in annunciatione dominica

incipit: aue gratia plena et cetera explicit: mereamur cum coronari [?]

g.) 153r – 157v in crucis exaltatione

incipit: michi ante absit gloriari explicit: qui pependit in cruce amen

h.) 157v – 164v sermo in octabis pasche

incipit: post dies octo explicit: ad discipulos intrauit

i.) 164v – 173r in die pasche sermo

incipit: nolite expauescere iehsum explicit: omnia secula seculorum amen

j.) 173r – 179r in die pasche sermo

incipit: surrexit dies uere explicit: quos nos perducat

k.) 179r – 181v sermo de sacramento altaris

incipit: afer pinguis panis explicit: sancit vivit et regnat

l.) 181v – 187v sermo in pasca uel pocius in cruce sermo

incipit: christus passes est pro nobis explicit: ipso prenantante et cetera

m.) 187r – 193v petri et pauli [?]

incipit: dabo duobus testibus explicit: qui vivit et regnat et cetera

n.) 193v – 196r sermo in pentecoste

70

incipit: factus est repente explicit: potestate domini nostri iehsu

o.) 196v – 200v in festo sacti iehsis baptiste

incipit: erit ei magnus coram explicit: qui uiuit et regnat

p.) 200v – 205v in natali petri et pauli apostolorum

incipit: fac tibi duas tubas explicit: iehsus christus et cetera

q.) 205v – 206v in assumptione sermo beate uirginis

incipit: signum magnum apparuit explicit: et personam non accipit

6.) Anonymous religious tract, 207r-209r. This tract is written in a littera semi-textualis

(grade: media). The letters are significantly larger than previous sections of the codex, with

the text written in a single column of 18 lines.

incipit: pater id est tu qui explicit: libera me igitur a malo amen

London, British Library, Royal 5 A I

Parchment, Latin, 208 folios, 170 x 135 mm, s. XIII, England

Miscellaneous Religious Tracts

2nd folio incipit: consuetudine prosterneret

This is a codex of 208 folios measuring 170 x 135 mm, with a writing space of 135 x 100 mm.

It is bound in a modern binding of pasteboard covered partially in dark leather, with five

decorative raised bands. Paper pastedowns, with three paper flyleaves at the front, and four

paper flyleaves at the back. Collation: iii + 12 + 24 + 3-58 + 64 + 7-128 + 138 (8 canc.) + 144 + 158 + 166

+ 17-188 + 198 (canc. 8) + 20-228 + 234 + 24-258 + 264 + 27-288 + 296 + 308 + iiii.

The manuscript contains several different productions bound together. It is typically

written in single columns of 26-28 lines. The exception to this is folios 1-6 and 43-63, which

were not part of the original production. Pricking after gathering and written below top

line. Very few corrections or marginal notations. Catchwords are written in the same hand

and are often partially cut off, but they are correct when visible. The codex was rebound in

71

1970. There is a modern foliation in Arabic numerals written in the top right corner.

Between folios numbered as 156 and 157 there are two blank, unfoliated leaves.4

The section containing John of Kent’s Summa de penitencia is written in a very legible littera

textualis (grade: currens/media) with a distinct leftward lean. Rubrics and initial paragraph

letters are in red. The first letters of sentences are also highlighted in red. Est is never

abbreviated. Crossed tironian et is used. There are almost no corrections or marginal

notations. It is written below top line.

The crest of the British Library is stamped on the front and back boards. Between the raised

bands is printed “THEOLOGICAL MISCELLANY”, “BRIT. MUS.”, “ROYAL MS. 5 A. I”, and paper

stickers with “3” and “a”. On the front pastedown “3A” is written in the bottom left corner.

On the back pastedown, written in the bottom left corner, is “Examined after binding /

3.3.70 LMB” and a stamp “B.M. 1970”. All flyleaves are blank apart from recent markings

denoting its place in the British Museum.

The manuscript’s place of origin cannot be determined with certainty. Early in its history it

belonged to Rochester Priory, as noted at the bottom of folio 7r: “de claustro Roffensis per

Radulfum Aylard”. A very detailed description of its contents was made in the inventory of

the Old Royal Collection made in 1924.5 As explained there, the manuscript became royal

property after Henry VIII’s dissolution of the monasteries, and it is found in both the 1542

and 1666 catalogues of the Royal Collection currently stored at the British Library.6 It was

also part of the donation of manuscripts made in 1757 by King George II to the British

Museum. Bloomfield includes portions of the manuscript in his Incipits of Latin Works on the

Virtues and Vices.7

4 The original, incorrect foliation will be used in this dissertation. 5 G. W. Warner and J. P. Gilson, Catalogue of Western manuscripts in the Old Royal and King’s Collections,

vol. 1 (Oxford: 1921). 6 J. Carley, ed., The libraries of King Henry VIII, CBMLC, vol. 7, (London: The British Library, 2000). 7 Bloomfield, Incipits of Latin works on the virtues and vices: 1100- 1500 AD, no. 4337, 4339.

72

Contents:

1.) Miscellany, 1r-6v. This section contains several short, incomplete texts, diagrams, and

lists of various theological topics.

2.) Saint Augustine, De spiritu and anima, 7r-25r. This section is written in textualis (grade:

media) in a single column of 28 lines.

incipit: quoniam dictum est mihi explicit: cognoscibis modi uideatur

3.) Saint Augustine, De cognicione uere uite, 25r-32v. As above, this section is written in

textualis (grade: media) in a single column of 28 lines.

incipit: gracias persoluimus deo explicit columbe corpus condidit

4.) Notes on the celebration of the Mass, 32v-34v. This section is written in textualis (grade:

currens) in a single column of 28 lines.

incipit: ista habet uolutatem explicit: trini sumantur

5.) Miscellaneous sermons and theological writings, 35r-42v This section is written in

textualis (grade: media) in a single column of 31 lines.

incipit: odium suscitat rixas explicit: deum meum perire cupio

6.) Treatise on the office of the Mass, with commentary. 43r-63r. This section is written in

textualis (grade: media/formata) in two to four columns of 37 lines.

incipit: tria sunt in quibus explicit: factus in nomine trinitatis

7.) John of Kent’s Summa de penitencia, 63v-89v. This section is described above in detail.

incipit: qualis debet esse explicit: de re in mobili

8.) Theological miscellany, 89v-93v. This section is written in the same hand as described

above for John of Kent’s Summa.

incipit: triplex apostasia explicit: diligatis quod per et cetera

9.) Ambrose, Liber de conflictu uiciorum atque uirtutum, 94r-98v. This section is written in

semitextualis (grade: media) in one column of 33 lines.

incipit: apostolica uox clamat explicit: inanes essent

10.) Miscellaneous theological writings, 98v-101v. This section is written in textualis (grade:

currens) in one column of 33 lines.

incipit: Iehsus autem abscondit se explicit: fugetur et cetera

73

11.) Theological tract, 102r-130v. This section is written in textualis (grade: currens) in one

column of 28 lines.

incipit: quemcumque superbum explicit: symoniaci sunt

12.) John of God, various writings, 131r-204r. This section is written in textualis (grade:

media) in one column of 26 lines.

incipit: uenerabili patri ac explicit: ut paradisum amen

13.) Miscellaneous notes on canon law, 205v-206r. This section is written in textualis (grade:

currens) in one column of 30 lines. The size of the letters frequently changes. The folios are

more damaged than in previous sections.

incipit: salutem cum inter explicit: sicut [?}

Oxford, University College Library, MS 58

Parchment, Latin, 217 folios, 315 x 220 mm, s. XIII, England

Four glossed gospels and two religious tracts

2nd folio incipit: Iacob autem genuit

This is a large codex of 217 folios measuring 315 mm x 220 mm, currently stored at the

Weston Library, Oxford. It is bound in a medieval binding of wooden boards covered in

plain tanned leather, with four raised bands. There are remains of a leather strap with metal

clasps. Parchment pastedowns, and one paper flyleaf at the front. Collation: i + 14 (2-4 canc.) + 2-

812 + 910 + 10-1612 + 17-1814 + 194 (3,4 canc.) + 202 + 2110 (7-10 canc.).

The bulk of the manuscript contains a glossed version of the four gospels. Two religious

tracts were added to the end, possibly before the initial binding. One is John of Kent’s

Summa de pentiencia, the other is Robert Grosseteste’s Templum Dei. The production of these

two religious tracts is similar to the gospels, although the parchment is in far worse shape,

indicating they existed unbound for a period before being included with the glossed

gospels. The codex is foliated in the top right corner with Arabic numerals written in pencil.

The first folio is a recycled sheet of parchment from an unknown religious text. Catchwords

for the section with the gospels are correct when visible, but have usually been cut off. The

section containing the two religious tracts has no visible catchwords.

74

The section containing John of Kent’s Summa de penitencia is written in a neat, compact littera

textualis (grade: media), with crossed tironian et and written below top line. It has a writing

space of 215 mm x 145 mm, written in two columns with 72 lines of text in each column.

Pricking done before gathering and ruled in pencil. Blank spaces have been left in each

column for rubrics, which were never filled in. Dark brown ink with initial letters written in

blue or red, with flourishes in the other color. One of these initials on 215v has been cut out.

No tie marks or paragraph marks. Almost no corrections or marginal notations. The text

ends mid-sentence on 217v, with the final portion of the Summa de penitencia missing.

On the spine, a paper sticker above the top strap has “D 5.” printed on it, which has been

crossed out with pencil to now read “C. 58.” Below the bottom band another paper sticker

has “MS. Univ. Coll. Ox. D. 58” printed on it, with the “D” crossed out with pencil and a “C”

written beside it. “D” and “C” were both shelf numbers at University College, which each

contained different sizes of manuscripts. Since the manuscript was on the border between

the two sizes it switched from one shelf to the other.8 In the center of the front pastedown is

the pressmark of University College, Oxford. Above the pressmark “D.5.” is written, with

“LVIII.” written beside it in another hand. There are numerous short blocks of text in a

medieval hand on the front pastedown. A blank paper leaf was recently inserted at the

front, but none at the back. On the back pastedown, a modern hand has written “217

leaves” in pencil, with numerous medieval markings from scribes practicing the formation

of letters. The first folio could be better classified as a flyleaf, but I have called it the first

folio in continuity with the foliation written in the upper right corner. What is now the

second folio is very badly damaged, with much of the top third cut off. The second folio

incipit consequently comes from 3r, which was the second folio of the original production.

The origin of this manuscript is unknown, but is likely of monastic production. At the

bottom of 2r a modern hand has written in ink: “ex dono Guil. Green. armigeri nuper hujus

8 This was kindly explained to me by the helpful staff at the Bodleian.

75

collegii commensalis superioris ordinis 1683.” This was written by William Smith, the

historian of University College, noting when it was gifted to University College by William

Green in 1683. The College had recently built a new library (1668-70) and received many

such donations during this period.9 The manuscript is briefly described by Henry O. Coxe

in his 1852 catalogue of Oxford manuscripts.10 Bloomfield also includes the manuscript in

his Incipits of Latin Works on the Virtues and Vices.11

Contents:

Each of the four gospels is written in the same hand: textualis (grade: formata). The gospel

text is written in the middle column, with the glosses in outer columns on each side. Inter-

linear glosses are also found throughout.

1.) Glossed gospel of Matthew, 1r-63v

incipit: principia presumens explicit: consummationem seculi

2.) Glossed gospel of Mark 64v-95v

incipit: marchus euuangelista dei explicit: sequentibus signis

3.) Glossed gospel of Luke, 96r-167v

incipit: lucas natione syrus explicit: benedicentes dominum amen

4.) Glossed gospel of John, 168r-209v

incipit: hic est iohannes explicit: scribendi sunt libri

5.) Robert Grosseteste’s Templum Dei, 210r-211v. This section is written in textualis (grade:

media) in two columns of 88 lines.

incipit: templum dei explicit: balnea balnea [?]

6.) John of Kent’s Summa de penitencia, 212r-217v. This section is described above in detail.

incipit: qualis debeat esse explicit: decios mutat uel

9 See R. W. Hunt, “The manuscript collection of University College, Oxford,” in The Bodleian

library record, vol. 3 (Oxford: Charles Bately, 1951), 13-33. 10 H. O. Coxe, Catalogus codicum MSS. qui in collegiis aulisque Oxoniensibus hodie adservantur, vol. 1

(Oxford, 1852). For the reprint, see H. O. Coxe, Catalogue of the manuscripts in the Oxford colleges, with

an introduction by K. W. Humfreys (Wakefield: E. P. Publishing, 1972). 11 Bloomfield, Incipits of Latin works on the virtues and vices: 1100- 1500 AD, no. 4337.

76

London, British Library, Royal 9 A XIV

Parchment, Latin, 301 folios, 175 x 120 mm, s. XIII, England

Miscellaneous Latin religious tracts, and several recipes in French

2nd folio incipit: in captiuitatem uel peregrinationem

This is a codex of 301 folios measuring 175 x 120 mm. The entire codex is in Latin with the

exception of folio 192, where there are several medieval recipes written in French. It is

bound in a modern binding of maroon leather on pasteboard, with five raised bands. Paper

pastedowns. Two paper flyleaves at the front and back, with an additional four parchment

flyleaves at the front. Collation: iiiiii + 117 + 2-616 + 716 (16 canc.) + 814 + 916 (16 canc.) + 1016 + 11-1512 +

16-1710 + 1812 + 198 (5-8 canc.) + 204 + 2112 + 2212 (9-12 canc.) + 2312 + 248 + 254 + ii.

The manuscript is a collection of several different productions later bound together. There is

a late medieval index on the initial flyleaves which lists all the included works. It is ruled in

double columns with the exception of folios 141-156 (written in verse) and 237-256 (written

in prose), which use single columns. No visible catchwords or quire marks. It is foliated

twice with Arabic numerals in the upper right corner, with an older incorrect foliation

written in pen and a newer correct foliation written in pencil.

The section containing John of Kent’s Summa de penitencia (folios 203v-232v) has a writing

space of 145 x 105 mm, written in two columns of equal size with 8 mm between. 38-42

lines, ruled after gathering. It is written in a very legible littera cursiva (grade: media), with

crossed tironian et. Written below top line and with a leftward slant. Rubrics are written in

red, with initial letters alternating blue and red. Paragraph marks likewise alternate blue

and red. Two initials on 225r and one on 232v are more elaborate, with each written in both

blue and red, and further red flourishing. Very few corrections or marginal notations. On

227r and 229r/v a large section of the column is left blank, signalling a missing portion of

the Summa which can be found in other copies of the text.

On the front and back covers is a crest of King George II with “1757” printed below.

Between the raised bands is printed “TRACTATUS THEOLOGICI, PHILOSOPHICI, ETC”, “BRIT.

77

MUS.”, “9 A. XIV.”, and paper stickers with “10” and “a”. On the front flyleaves are written

“9 A XIV. p 168” and a medieval index of the contents. On the back flyleaves are various

notes and pen trials, including the name “Adam de Lime(?)” and the year “1410”.

A very detailed description of its contents is found in the inventory of the Old Royal

Collection made in 1924.12 As recorded there, the manuscript quickly became royal

property after Henry VIII’s dissolution of the monasteries, and it is found in the 1666 royal

catalogue currently stored at the British Library. It was part of the donation of manuscripts

made in 1757 by King George II to the British Museum. Bloomfield includes the manuscript

in his Incipits of Latin Works on the Virtues and Vices.13

Contents:

1.) Canon law miscellany, 1r-17r. This section contains short sections written on various

canonical issues. It is written in textualis (grade: media) in two columns of 42 lines.

incipit: de sponsalibus explicit: sacramento confirmationis

2.) Richard of Wetheringsett, Qui bene presunt, 18r-112v. This section is written in textualis

(grade: media) in two columns of 40 lines.

incipit: qui bene presunt explicit: uel consummatus

3.) Simon de Hinton, Summa iuniorum, 113r-139r. This section is written in textualis (grade:

media) in two columns of 42 lines.

incipit: ad instructionem iuniorum explicit: tunc foret mortale

4.) Vita et sententiae Secundi Philosophi, 139v-140v. This section is written in textualis (grade:

media/formata) in two columns of 41 lines.

incipit: secundus philosophus sint explicit: inferi et intitulari

5.) Alexander Neckham, Corrogationes promethei metrice, 141r-156r. This section is written in

textualis (grade: media) in one column of 52 lines.

incipit: excipit .a. byssus explicit: languentibus excoriantur

12 Warner and Gilson, Catalogue of Western manuscripts in the Old Royal and King’s Collections, vol. 1. 13 Bloomfield, Incipits of Latin works on the virtues and vices: 1100- 1500 AD, no. 4339.

78

6.) Hymn, 156r-156v. This section is written in textualis (grade: media) in one column of 52

lines.

incipit: aguicio duodecim lapidum explicit: conciuis esse poterit

7.) Saint Bonaventure, Breviloquium, 157r-191v. This section is written in textualis (grade:

media) in two columns of 42 lines.

incipit: flecto graua mea explicit: in secula seculorum amen

8.) De erroribus, 191v. This section, given under the red rubric de erroribus, is written in

textualis (grade: currens) in two columns of 42 lines.

incipit: primus error est explicit: anno ab [?]

9.) Medical recipes in French, 192r-192v. This section is written in textualis (grade: currens) in

two columns of 42 lines.

incipit: est languete au explicit: et oynex

10.) Miscellaneous writings of Robert Grosseteste, 193r-202v. This section is written in

textualis (grade: currens) in two columns of 30 lines.

incipit: debentes de uobis explicit: senet(?) christum

11.) Theological miscellany, 202v-203r. This section is written in textualis (grade: currens)

and shows several diagrams of theological content.

incipit: contrariis contrauia curantur explicit: dare uestem accurato

12.) John of Kent’s Summa de penitencia, 203v-232v. This section is described in detail above.

incipit: compendium operis explicit: ceteris suffragiis amen

13.) Tract on the seven deadly sins, 232v-236v. This section is written in textualis (grade:

currens) in two columns of 37 lines.

incipit: fratres dilectissimi explicit: leuitati quippiam

14.) Abridgement of Aristotle's zoological works, 237r-247v. This section is written in

textualis (grade: currens) in one column of 45 lines.

incipit: quedam partes anaimalium explicit: essis in quo radicantur

15.) Miscellaneous lives of saints from the Legenda Aurea, 247v-256r. This section is written

in textualis (grade: currens) in one column of 45 lines.

incipit: pari suo in christo explicit: pare quieuit amen

79

16.) William of Conches, Dragmaticon, 257r-275v. This section is written in textualis (grade:

media) in two columns of 42 lines.

incipit: quoniam ut ait explicit: longitudinem terminenus

17.) Theological miscellany, 275v-276r. This section of unknown, unfinished theological

commentary is written in textualis (grade: currens) in two columns of 42 lines.

incipit: doctrinam fidei explicit: dextus et noti

18.) Miscellaneous lives of saints, 277r-294r. This section is written in textualis (grade:

media/formata) in two columns of 38 lines.

incipit: sermo beati bernardi explicit: christum de iudei

19.) Miscellaneous penitential texts, 296r-297r This section is written in textualis (grade:

currens) in two columns of 38 lines.

incipit: que sunt necessaris explicit: persona notetur

Cambridge, Emmanuel College, MS 83

Parchment, Latin, 217 folios, 166 x 120 mm, s. XIII, England

Miscellaneous religious tracts

2nd folio incipit: -dem suam habet memoria

This is a codex of 217 folios measuring 165 x 120 mm, with a writing space of 110 x 70 mm,

all written in single columns. It is bound in a modern binding of pasteboard covered

completely in light brown leather, with four slightly raised bands. Paper pastedowns and

flyleaves. Collation: ii + 18 + 26 (5,6 canc.) + 3-412 + 514 + 612 + 714 + 8-1512 + 168 + 178 (8 canc.) + 1814 + 1912

+ 206 (5,6 canc.) + ii.

The entire manuscript is written by a single hand in a consistently executed littera textualis

(grade: media/formata), with dark brown ink, crossed tironian et, and written below top line.

Large spaces are often left blank between the various sections, with the following section

starting on a fresh leaf. Folios 11 and 12 are completely blank. Rubrics are in red with

internal paragraph marks alternating blue and red. Initials are likewise written in blue or

red, with standard flourishes in the other color. Two especially beautiful initials are found

on 13r and 89r which also employ green and light brown ink. All catchwords which are still

80

visible are correctly placed. The margins are usually empty, but there are occasional

paragraph marks with rubrics or other notes for quick referencing. Lines are pricked after

gathering and ruled in pencil, with 19 lines per page throughout. In the bottom right corner

of the first recto of each quire a modern hand has penciled in the quire number, and in the

top corner the folio number. According to the 1904 catalogue of M. R. James, there are

twelve folios in quire five, with 215 folios altogether.14 The correct number of folios in quire

five is fourteen, with 217 folios altogether. The folio number penciled in the top corner of

each quire dates to the making of James’s catalogue and these numbers are consequently

wrong after this mistake in the fifth quire.15

Above and between the raised bands are several paper stickers, together reading “MSS

1.4.4”. The space between the first and second bands contains gold lettering reading

“TRACTATUS DE VITIIS.” On the front pastedown is a paper sticker with the crest of

Emmanuel College. There are two paper flyleaves at each end. In the top right corner of the

first flyleaf “MSS. 1.4.4” is penciled in, and right below that “83”. Otherwise all four

flyleaves are left blank. On 1r a modern hand in ink wrote in the top right corner “1-5-4”

and then at the center bottom “Tractatus de Vitiis. 1.2.9.” A later hand in pencil wrote

overtop the top right reference number, correcting it to “MSS 1-4-4” and crossed out the

“1.2.9” in the bottom center note.

Joseph Goering suggested the codex originated in Ramsey Abbey.16 Later research by Krista

Murchison has supported this point of origin, and she found that the prior Benedict

mentioned in the manuscript may correspond to a prior Benedict at Ramsey Abbey between

14 M. R. James, The Western manuscripts in the library of Emmanuel College (Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1904). 15 In continuity with previous studies of this manuscript, the original (mistaken) folio numbers will

continue to be used in this dissertation. 16 J. Goering, “The Summa de penitentia of John of Kent,” BMCL 18 (1988): 18. On the bottom of folio 1r

a later hand wrote the title Tractatus de vitiis. This is possibly the same as the Summa de viciis listed in

the Ramsey cataloge. R. Sharpe et al., eds., English Benedictine libraries: the shorter catalogues, B68.131.

81

1231 and 1290.17 Emmanuel College, where it is now located, was founded in 1584 at

Cambridge University but there is no record of the manuscript there till the late seventeenth

century. It is absent from the catalogue made in 1600.18 It appears as no. 79 in the catalogue

of 1697.19 A detailed description was made by M. R. James in his Catalogue of 1904.20 This is

also when the reference number was changed from MSS 1.4.4 to MS 83. Bloomfield

individually lists several of the works found in this manuscript in his Incipits of Latin Works

on the Virtues and Vices.21 This is the only known manuscript that attributes the formerly

anonymous Summa de penitencia to John of Kent.

Contents:

The following items were all written in the hand described above.

1.) Anonymous. Diffinitio anime, 1r-10v (folios 11 & 12 are left blank)

incipit: anima ut uult aristoteles explicit: ab angelis bonis uel malis

2.) Anonymous. Twenty-six questions on Peter Lombard’s Sententiae, 13r-33v

incipit: dicitur quod due sunt explicit: et sic patet ultimo quesitum

3.) Anonymous. Contra pudorum confitendi, 34r-36v

incipit: cogita quod nunc tua peccata explicit: gestarum occulta inductio

4.) Short, miscellaneous theological texts, many on the seven vices, 37r-187v. This section

contains brief interspersed extracts from the following works: Peter of Poitier’s Summa de

confessione; Anonymous, Si scienter; Robert Grosseteste, Templum Dei; Anonymous, Speculum

confessionis; Robert Grosseste, Perambulauit Iudas; Anonymous, De septem viciis; Anonymous,

Tractatus de quibus debet esse confessio; Anonymous. Commentary on Peter Lombard’s

Sententiae.

17 K. A. Murchison, “The effects of the seven Sins. A critical edition.” The annual of the association for

documentary editing 38 (2017): online resource, http://scholarlyediting.org/2017/editions/sevens-

ins/intro.html (accessed Mar. 15, 2018). 18 J. Thomas, ed., Ecloga Oxonio-Cantabrigiensis tributa in libros duos (London: Arnold Harfield, 1600). 19 E. Bernard, ed., Catalogi librorum manuscriptorum Angliae et Hiberniae in unum collecti (Oxford:

Sheldon Theatre, 1697), 79. 20 James, The Western manuscripts in the library of Emmanuel College, n. 83. 21 Bloomfield, Incipits of Latin works on the virtues and vices: 1100- 1500 AD.

82

incipit: quedam dicuntur spiritualia explicit: simul a gaudio excluduntur

5.) Theological texts on the sacraments, 188r-215v. This section contains short selections

from various tracts on the seven sacraments. Between the excerpts from John of Kent a short

passage from Pope Innocent III’s treatise on the sacraments (201v – 203v) is included.

incipit: quod septem sunt sacramenta explicit: si non possit non celebret

5a.) Interspersed excerpts from John of Kent’s Summa de penitencia,

i.) 200r incipit: de eukaristia et quid sit eius substantia

201v explicit: sic docuisse dicitur maurus pariensis episcopus

ii.) 204r incipit: sacramentum hoc non nisi a mundis

209v explicit: si inuentum fuerit xx dies

83

4.3 NOTES ON THE MANUSCRIPTS

This section will discuss several aspects of the manuscripts which do not fit in the

manuscript descriptions but are of importance for this critical edition. These mainly consist

of various marginal oddities and differences of rubrication. For the sake of convenience, the

manuscripts will be compared to R when analyzing their rubrication, whose chapters

numbers I reproduced in the critical edition.

The manuscript R

R is the only manuscript that contains all three books together. At the start of book one it

contains a list of chapter titles numbered in Arabic numerals. It contains an unnumbered

chapter list at the start of book two. These lists are unique to R, as is the initial prologue. All

the allegationes have been removed. In the bottom margin of folio 219v the same or a

contemporary hand added a long note from a glossed decretal collection not found in other

manuscripts.22 On folio 211v another note is similarly added.23 On folios 227r and 229r/v a

large blank space has been left in the manuscript. With the discovery of G it was found that

these sections correspond to a lost portion of the text. The corresponding sections in G

would require the same amount of blank space left in R to be written out. As well, there are

a few spaces for rubrics in book three that the rubricator of R left blank.

The manuscript L

L contains the first and second books only. It gives no indication that a third book exists and

it lacks the prologue found in R. The first book offers the first rubric and then immediately

22 “Beda super Marcum. Quod non est licitum in lege, necessitas licitum facit. Hoc ideo quia

necessitas legi non subiacet. Nam et si secundum custodiri preceptum est; Machabei tamen in

sabbato sine culpa pugnant. Sic et hodie si quis ieiunium fregerit egrotus, reus voti non habetur.

Eciam si in quadragesima carnes comedat, non dicitur frangere uotum. Utilius scandalum nasci

permittitur quam ueritas relinquatur.” R, fol. 219v, bottom margin (see Gl. ord. ad X 5.41.4 v. casus). 23 “Gregorius uii. Quod latenter aut per uim. uel alias illicite introductum est; nulla debet stabilitate

subsistere.” R, fol. 221v, bottom margin.

84

begins the main text.24 The second book begins with a rubric not found in the other

manuscripts: Liber secundus de matrimonio. This is different than the prologue in R which

says book two will treat topics that pertain especially to the laity, not specifically marriage.

Apart from this rubric, the text of book two in L begins in the same way as R. There is no

colophon, only a wavy red line and some blank space before the scribe begins copying from

a different work.

The chapter titles in L are often truncated or otherwise changed from those in R. For

example, chapter 1.6 in R is called De homicidio et multis eius speciebus, et torneamentis et

monomachiis. In L this is changed to De homicidio et multis eius speciebus. Similar minor

changes can be found in the other rubrics. There is a major change with chapter 1.15. R calls

it In quibus casibus non tenet excommunicacio, et de excommunicacione post mortem et aliis. L calls

it In quatuor casibus excommunicacionem non timet quia nulla est. In other places, the rubric is

completely missing in L, for example chapter 1.16 where there is no space left for a rubric.

The same is true for chapter 1.17, although L does add a large initial letter there. For chapter

1.18, L gives the rubric meant for 1.19, but when 1.19 should begin, L has neither a rubric

nor space for one, although it does contain a large initial letter.

Despite these differences, when L occasionally lists the chapter number along with the

rubric, it corresponds to the same number found in R, not to what it would be if one

counted the chapters of L. This shows that the differences of rubrication between L and R

are mainly due to scribal error. The one exception to this occurs in book two. Between

chapters 21 and 22 there is an extra rubric in L called De nundinis mercatorum ut condicione

sibi inuicem credant. This is the first line in the text of the chapter, and L is the only

manuscript which makes it into a rubric. The numbering in subsequent chapters is off by

one, with the result that there are 25 chapters in L compared to the 24 in R.

24 “Qualis debet esse confessor et quod alienam ouem non admittat nisi in casibus. Capitulum

primum.” L, fol. 63v.

85

The manuscript O

O contains books one and two only. The text cuts off mid-sentence in section 2.23 and the

final folios are missing. It is unknown whether they originally contained book three, but

this is unlikely due to the manuscript’s close similarity with L. Like L, the prologue is

omitted. There is no rubric denoting the change between books one and two. However, the

first line of chapter 2.1 already states that lay issues will now be dealt with, so an extra

rubric was not strictly necessary to demarcate the two books.

Throughout both books the scribe of O left a blank space for chapter titles, but these were

never filled in. Interestingly, the shape of the blank space is frequently like the space of the

rubrics in R. However, when comparing the rubrics, O often differs from R. Sometimes the

difference with R is the same as seen in L, and in a few cases the difference is unique to O.

For example, for chapters 1.14 and 1.16 there are no spaces in O for a rubric. Between 1.21

and 1.22 there is an extra space for a rubric only in O. Between 2.21 and 2.22 there is an

extra space for a rubric in both L and O. Regarding the text itself, there are no substantial

changes unique to O. Since the final folios of book two are missing after 2.23, it is unknown

what the final chapter count is and whether it diverges from R in the same way that L does.

The manuscript G

G contains book three only. It presents it as an independent work on confession. There is no

explicit mention that it would be structured as a dialogue. It starts with Incipit prologus in

tractatu de confessione and ends with Explicit summa de confessione. Similar to R, there are

short rubrics scattered throughout which separate the various topics about which the

penitent is to be interrogated. However, there are fewer rubrics than in R. The previously

mentioned two sections of blank space in R can be reconstructed using the missing text

found in G. There are numerous other short sections of text unique to G which are not due

to scribal error. It was certainly a deliberate revision that caused these differences with R.

However, the difference is mainly in how things are phrased. Apart from a few exceptions

noted in the apparatus criticus, the content of R and G is substantially the same.

86

The manuscript C

C contains only fragments of book one but is especially significant in two ways. It alone

contains the attribution of the Summa to John of Kent as well as the original allegationes. An

in-depth discussion of the allegationes is offered below. Apart from these unique

characteristics, the text in C is essentially the same as that found in LOR except for the

following changes of rubrication.

Part way through 1.23 C has an extra rubric called De uino pretermisso in consecracione

nescienter. Further in the same chapter a section from a text of Innocent III inserted. When

the text of the Summa continues another new rubric is added: Item magister Johannes de

Cautia: a quibus tractandum est hoc sacramentum. These rubrics are written in red within the

text, but they do not have a chapter number attached to them. When chapter 1.24 begins, C

gives the same rubric as LOR and likewise calls it chapter 24. Other additional, unnumbered

rubrics are found in sections 1.24 and 1.25.

There are additional blocks of text unique to C, both in the margin and the main body of

text. In the main body of C there is an insertion of a text from Innocent III done at the

initiative of the scribe. However, there are two other additions where the possibility

remains that they were part of John of Kent’s original Summa. One is a passage from the

Decretum.25 The other is a passage from the synodal constitutions of Odo of Sully.26 A full

transcription of C, which includes these additions and the original allegationes, is given as an

appendix.

25 D.2 De con. c.27. 26 See Odo of Sully, Synodicae constitutiones c. 23 (PL 212, 61).

87

4.4 THE MISSING ALLEGATIONES

When Joseph Goering discovered that the fragments of the Summa in C contain the lost

attribution to John of Kent, he also discovered that they contain a series of allegations (in-text

technical legal citations). These allegationes are frequently found in legal texts and note

parallel and contrary passages in other texts.27 The allegationes in C usually note parallel

passages in the Decretum and early decretal compilations. A transcription of C is attached as

an appendix, which may be compared to the edited text to see where the allegationes were

included.

From an editor’s perspective, the first question to arise upon the discovery of the allegationes

in C is whether these were original to John of Kent’s Summa or a later addition. It was both

my initial impression and final conclusion that the allegationes were part of the original text.

My initial impression came primarily from the manuscript evidence. C is (likely) the oldest

manuscript and contains other unique elements, such as the authorial attribution to John of

Kent. Additionally, concluding that the allegationes were removed rather than added is the

simpler solution. Removing the allegationes would have been a relatively straightforward

task, one that could be accomplished either by John of Kent himself or any reasonably

trained scribe. Adding the allegationes later would take an enormous amount of effort and

expertise.

There are several internal indications that the allegationes were in the original text. For

example, in book one a section of the text reads: “Note that certain people say, and wrongly,

that the Pope is not able to remit infamy that has been imposed by a civil judge. But it is

expressly said against them.”28 The words “it is expressly said against them” only make

27 See Weigand, “The Glossa Ordinaria,” in HMCL, 58. When Bernard of Pavia, one of John of Kent’s

primary material sources, wrote his preface to the Breviarium extravagantium, he stated it was one of

his main purposes to provide a richer supply of allegationes. See Prefaces of canon law books in Latin

Christianity, eds. R. Sommerville and B. Brasington (London: Yale University Press, 1998), 230. 28 “Nota quod quidam dicunt et male quod infamiam per ciuilem iudicem irrogatam remittere papa

non potest. Set expresse dicitur contra eos.” John of Kent, Summa, 1.743-4.

88

sense if there was originally an allegatio following. Another instance can be found later in

book one, which reads: “Concerning children who do not understand what they receive,

such as those under seven, it seems better to me to not give to them, although certain people

oppose this through a certain decree which says that the Eucharist can be given to

children.”29 The words “through a certain decree” suggest an allegatio should be included.

This is confirmed by the discovery of C, which does include an allegatio there. In most

instances, the person who removed the allegationes was careful to ensure the text made

sense without them, but he occasionally leaves traces of his work.30

On the other hand, the best evidence for the allegationes being a later addition comes from

the fact that there is a single allegatio to the Liber extra published in 1234, long after the

composition of the Summa in c. 1216.31 This allegatio is phrased as “Extra, De torneamentis, c. i.

et ii.”, making it certain that it refers to the Liber extra rather than an earlier decretal

collection. The best explanation for this, however, is that this particular allegatio was an

marginal note later added, which another scribe then placed into the main body of the

copied manuscript. In other words, the other allegationes are original, but this particular one

is not. The evidence for this conclusion comes from the fact that C has six other allegationes

to decretals. The scribe always formulates these allegationes in an older way, for example,

“ultra, De celebratione Misse, De homine.” They are never in a form that references the Liber

extra, despite all of them being decretals that were included in the Liber extra. As such, this

piece of evidence does not outweigh the other evidence supporting that conclusion that the

allegationes were in the original text.

29 “De pueris qui non intelligunt quid accipiunt, puta infra septennium, michi uidetur sanius non

dare eis, licet quidam contra per quoddam decretum quod dicit pueris dandam esse eucharistiam.

Ibid., 1.981-3. 30 For other examples, see Goering, “The Summa de penitentia of John of Kent,” 21, n. 42. 31 See appendix A, ln. 68.

89

This is not the only text where the allegationes were removed.32 A similar case is Paul of

Hungary’s Summa de penitentia, recently examined by Mark Johnson.33 Paul of Hungary (d.

1242) was a Dominican friar and, like John of Kent, trained as a canonist. Unlike John of

Kent’s Summa, Paul of Hungary’s text mainly survives in the form containing the

allegationes, but there are several manuscripts which lack them. The immediate question in

Johnson’s study was also whether the allegationes were original to the text. After Johnson

discovered traces of the allegationes in the recension that lacked them, he likewise concluded

they were original to the text.34

Having established that the allegationes were removed rather than added to John of Kent’s

Summa, there are several other details that deserve mention. The unknown person, perhaps

John of Kent himself, who edited the Summa was careful to delete all the allegationes, but he

additionally removed several attributions to particular authors which were normally left in

place. For example, secundum Lanfrancum was removed from book one line 1037.35

Since C does not include any fragments of book three, it remains a question whether book

three originally contained allegationes. Twice the text has the phrases in decretali and a

decretis, which are phrases in books one and two that commonly, but not always, precede an

32 Pennington found that one of the twelve manuscripts of Conrad of Hoxter’s Summa left out the

allegationes but changed the wording only slightly. See K. Pennington, “Summae on Raymond de

Pennafort’s Summa de casibus in the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Munich,” Traditio 27 (1971): 478, n.

31. 33 P. Johnson, “Paul of Hungary’s Summa de penitentia,” in From learning to love: schools, law, and

pastoral care in the Middle Ages: essays in honour of Joseph W. Goering, eds. Sharp et al, (Toronto:

Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2017), 402-18. 34 Ibid., 418. 35 There are several lost copies of John of Kent’s Summa mentioned in library catalogues. It cannot be

known with certainty whether they had the allegationes. However, there is a tentative piece of

evidence to suggest they did. The library catalogue at Peterborough Abbey likely has the same

Summa listed twice. The first mention is when it was bequeathed to the Abbey, and is listed as a

Summa J. de Cantia cum aliis rebus. Goering suggests this is the same as the Summa Mag. J. de Cancia de

decretis listed in the library matriculum. See Goering, “The Summa de penitentia of John of Kent,” 15. If

this is true, the title Summa de decretis could have been a scribal invention, one fitting for a text which

still had the allegationes.

90

allegatio.36 However, apart from these two examples there are no other indications it

originally contained the allegationes. Due to the dialogue format of book three, and because

the first two books were composed separately, I think it unlikely that it originally contained

them.

4.5 TEXTUAL CRITICISM

None of five manuscripts is a codex descriptus. For books one and two there are four

surviving witnesses: CLOR. There are only two witnesses that each contain book three: GR.

All the manuscripts date to the thirteenth century. The position of the manuscripts in the

following stemma textuum does not indicate time:

A tentative stemma textuum

ω

C α

µ R G

L O

A note on the archetype ω and the manuscript C

The archetype ω hypothetically corresponds to a copy of the author’s original recension

which contained the allegationes. The hyparchetype α corresponds to a later recension which

had these allegationes removed. α and C are the only witnesses to ω. C contains only

fragments of the text and there is only one common mistake in both C and α that provides

36 John of Kent, Summa 3.145 and 3.947.

91

evidence for the existence of ω. In line 1.1005, α and C list infra when it should be supra.

However, this mistake could easily have been in the author’s original text. The possibility

thus remains that C copied from the author’s original text, in which case the archetype ω

would not exist. This seems highly unlikely, especially since C was likely written at Ramsey

Abbey which has no known connection to the author. However, given the short amount of

text in C, there are no other common errors with α to conclusively prove the existence of ω.

The existence of the archetype ω thus remains tentative. Regardless, the manuscript C

certainly belongs to a different family than α. The allegationes are missing in α which means

C did not descend from α. Conversely, α has the whole Summa, so it did not descend from

the fragments in C.

The family α (GRµ(LO))

α corresponds to a second recension of the Summa which had the allegationes removed. The

branch µ contains the first two books alone. The manuscript G contains the third book

alone. Thus, µ and G cannot be collated against each other. Each can only be compared to R

which contains the whole text. I will first compare books one and two as found in µ and R.

From these manuscripts, numerous distinctive errors in α can be discovered, for example:

1.72 mutet] mittet LOR; 1.214 manu] manus LOR; 1.329 sine] eciam LOR; 1.391 milia] misit LOR; 2.269

peccatum] contradictum LOR; 2.747 filius] suus LOR; 2.858 usurarius] usitacior LOR; 2.929 est] esto

LOR

The manuscript R

There are several whole passages missing in R but present in µ that are shown in the

apparatus criticus. Likewise, there are numerous unique errors that separate R from µ and

preclude its parentage of that branch, for example:

1.116 queritur] quare R; 1.124 ordinatur] ordinantur R; 1.225 tumorem] timorem R; 1.234 circa] contra

R; 1.267 carnales] carles R; 1.271 symoniam] symonia R; 1.303 aliquem nouicium] abbatem nouium R

92

The branch µ (LO)

The text of R and µ is very similar, differing only in minor ways that can be mostly

attributed to scribal errors. L and O share innumerable transpositions of the text in R. They

also share several changes in the rubrication of R as explained above. Furthermore, there

are several errors unique to µ, which include missing passages as shown in the apparatus

criticus.

Neither of the two manuscripts that compose µ is a copy of the other. Each contain errors,

transpositions and other elements unique to itself. These are several of the separative errors

of L:

1.44 uerecundia] quod L; 1.995 sine sanguine] siue sanguinem L; 2.43 consensus corporum] om. L;

1.89/91 illi ... matrimonium] om. L; 2.111 legittimam repudiauit] legitimauit L

These are several of the errors unique to O:

2.274 tenetur] licet O; 2.301 potest] post O; 2.382 intersit] intercessio O; 2.731 repeticio] recepcio O

The manuscript G

G contains only the third book and can only be compared to R. The text in each manuscript

is similar, but as previously noted there are numerous large differences that cannot be

attributed to scribal error. There was a deliberate revision that accounts for the changes

between G and R in how things are phrased. Like the other manuscripts in α, it lacks the in-

text legal allegationes, but I have not found any definite shared errors between R and G.

Thus, the inclusion of G in the α family is only probable.

93

4.6 EDITORIAL PRINCIPLES

This edition aims at reproducing the text of α, using the combined witness of GLOR, as

outlined in the previous chapter on stemmatics. There are two reasons I have chosen to

reproduce α and not the original text containing the allegationes. The first is because α is the

text that survives in the majority of manuscripts; with only fragments of ω surviving. As a

matter of principle, I consider it a more valuable gift to modern scholarship to reproduce

the text known to medieval readers than the text that directly left the author’s hand.

The second reason is that I think it very possible John of Kent himself removed the

allegationes. As such, α would likewise be a production of the author. In this scenario, John

of Kent would have originally written a more technical work filled with allegationes and

intended for his juridical peers. At some point, perhaps years later, he decided to repurpose

the work for a less juridical audience, for whom the allegationes were not useful. It was

possibly only at this point that he composed the third book, which lays out directly how the

material of books one and two can be applied in the confessional.

The specifics of the composition process, and whether it was John of Kent or a later scribe

who removed the allegationes, can only be supposed. For modern readers who are interested

in the original, more juridical text, I have largely reconstructed the allegationes and included

them in the apparatus fontium.

I have used R as my Leithandschrift for the purposes of structuring the text. R is not without

errors, but it reliably provides the only complete version of the text. As detailed above,

there are a few major and numerous minor differences between the rubrics of each

manuscript, but I have always chosen the rubrics of R. For the main text, when there are

equally tenable variants of equal stemmatic weight, I have chosen the reading of R.

Books one and two are edited according to standard principles of critical editions. Since

book three has only two surviving witnesses, with R and G having equal stemmatic weight,

94

it is edited eclectically. It frequently happens that one manuscript contains a string of text

not found in the other. In these cases I have included the text in the edition and note the

corresponding omission in the apparatus. For other types of variants, I have chosen the most

sensible one. If they are both sensible, I have chosen the reading of R.

Orthography and punctuation

I have largely followed R for orthographic matters, which frequently differs from the other

manuscripts. R is occasionally inconsistent, and in those situations I standardized the text to

its most consistent orthography. R always uses the collapsed diphthong for ae and oe, and

does not hypercorrect as commonly seen in medieval manuscripts. The letter combination ti

is generally changed to ci for words such as penitencia and eciam. Occasionally R will use

forms such as unccio and benediccio, but these have been standardized to the more

commonly used unctio and benedictio. The use of n rather than m has been kept for words

such as tanquam and nunquid. R vacillates between having an initial h for words such as

hospitelarios, and I have standardized the usage to the most common form. Likewise, I have

chosen the most common usage of i and y for words such as ydola and symonia. The

epenthetical p has been kept for words such as sollempne. Doubled letters, for example

septennium and reddat, which R is inconsistent about, have been standardized to the most

common form. I have kept the typical medieval orthography in R for words such as michi,

nichil and set.

Occasionally R introduces a space in words such as sub diaconatu and manu mittatur. I have

written these as a single word. R vacillates between writing out numbers or only having the

Roman numeral, sometimes with the declension written above the numeral. I have written

out all numbers completely. The miniscule u is always used and represents both the

consonantal and the vocalic sound. For the majuscule, a differentiation between the

consonantal and vocalic has been introduced, with U and V used accordingly. The use of

majuscules and minuscules has otherwise been normalized to contemporary standards. I

95

have introduced some minimal punctuation to help modern readers understand the sense

of the passage.

There are three apparatus printed on the page:

Traditio textus

The first apparatus, which appears only on the first page of each book, lists the manuscripts

that witness the edited text.

The apparatus fontium

Only material sources are cited in the apparatus fontium, which is the second apparatus that

appears on the page. Biblical sources are also placed in this apparatus. The first two books of

the Summa de penitencia frequently draw on Robert of Flamborough’s Liber poenitentialis,

although there are no indications within the Summa to denote when this occurs. I have

closely compared the two texts and placed the corresponding passages of Flamborough in

the apparatus fontium. When the use of Flamborough is neither verbatim nor near-verbatim,

but John of Kent is obviously drawing from him, cfr is placed before the citation.

The majority of other entries in the apparatus fontium correspond to a source explicitly

mentioned in the text. These in-text citations usually take forms such as secundum Cantorem

or secundum Tancredum. When the specific passage referred to has been located, it is given in

the apparatus. When there is some uncertainty about whether it is the correct source, cfr is

placed before the citation. Occasionally I have not found the source, in which case locum non

inueni is written. In some instances, especially with references to Saint Augustine, John of

Kent was not drawing directly from Augustine’s works, but from quotations of him

included in Gratian’s Decretum. In these instances, I have listed both the section of the

Decretum that John of Kent was drawing from.

96

It frequently happens that John of Kent leaves the citation anonymous, using forms such as

quidam dicunt or secundum alios. In these cases, I have used the same procedure as just

mentioned. When the specific passage has been located, it is given in the apparatus, but if

there is some uncertainty, cfr is placed before the citation. If I have not found the source, I

have written locum non inueni. Often John of Kent himself may not have known who the

secundum quosdam is referring to, such as when as the phrase is taken verbatim from

Flamborough.

This edition produces the text without the allegationes, but occasionally there are indications

in the text where these were formerly placed. These indications typically consist of phrases

such as in decretis or in decretali. When these phrases are explicit in the text, the

corresponding allegatio is cited in the apparatus. The form of the allegatio in the apparatus

follows the standards used in modern scholarship.37 Occasionally John of Kent gives

verbatim the whole text of a law without any indication that he has done so, using it the

same way as his other material sources. This often happens with the canons of Lateran IV.

When these instances have been found, the corresponding allegatio is given in the apparatus.

The lack of modern editions of the decretal collections, apart from those of Friedburg, and

likewise their juridical commentaries, presents various difficulties. It is often impossible to

determine which version of which legal commentary John of Kent used when he cites the

opinion of a canonist. Even when I have determined which commentary is being used, I

have often not been able to consult the extant manuscripts. As well, it is sometimes unclear

which decretal collection John of Kent was using. He certainly used the first three of the

Compilationes antiquae, but at other times he may have been drawing from one of the

intermediate compilationes such as the Collectio Tanneri or the Collectio Alani.38 Many of these

sources remain only in manuscript form. To facilitate the usefulness of this apparatus, I have

37 For a description of the modern and medieval ways of citing canon and Roman law, see J. A.

Brundage, Medieval canon law (London: Longman, 1995), 190-242. 38 See. Goering, “The Summa de penitentia of John of Kent,” 25, no. 48.

97

cited all decretals according to their place in the Liber extra, with the corresponding citation

to the Compilationes antiquae given in parenthesis. When John of Kent draws from the

glosses of various canonists, I have cited the corresponding section in the Glossa ordinaria

even though that version of the gloss postdates John of Kent’s Summa.

The apparatus criticus

The apparatus criticus is shown at the bottom of the page and is generally negative. It is

positive only when I have chosen the reading of one manuscript against the weight of

stemmatic evidence. Orthographic variants among the manuscripts are not listed.

Insignificant transpositions are likewise not listed. When there is some doubt about how

words should be expanded, I have indicated this in the apparatus.

For books one and two, which are witnessed by LOR, the variants in R are always listed,

and the variants in L and O are listed if both contain a variant different to R. The one

exception to this is with the rubrics, since L and O always differ because the blank spaces

for them in O were never filled in. In this situation I have always given the rubrics of R and

listed only the variants of L in the apparatus.

In book three, which is witnessed by G and R and is edited eclectically, any variants are

always listed in the apparatus criticus.

Presentation of the text

The prologue to the Summa in R states that each book will be divided up by chapters and

rubrics. This structure is preserved in my edited text. In the first book, R has numbered all

the chapter titles with Arabic numerals. These Arabic numerals have been retained. Book

two does not have any numerals, but Arabic numerals have been introduced between angle

brackets. In book three the rubrics structuring the dialogue are not numbered in either R or

the edited text.

98

I have introduced line numbers, which begin afresh for each book. These numbers do not

correspond to any aspect of the manuscript. Critical signs correspond to modern usage.

Any text that I have added is enclosed by angle brackets < >. Square brackets [ ] denote text

that is in the manuscripts, but should be deleted. An obelisk † surrounds text that cannot be

determined by palaeographical means. Since I have used R as my Leithandschrift, I have

included the folio and column of R in the margin and written a forward slash / in the text

for each change of column in manuscript R.

Direct quotations and vernacular words are placed in italics. In book three, the dialogue is

formatted such that the speaker is written in small caps (SACERDOS/PENITENS). Each new

question or answer is indented rather than placed within quotation marks.

John of Kent

Summa de penitencia

100

Plate 1: London, British Library MS Royal 9.A.XIV, folio 203v

101

Plate 2: Emmanuel College, Cambridge, MS 83 folio 204r

102

Plate 3: Oxford, University College MS 58, folio 212r

103

Plate 4: London, British Library MS Royal 5.A.I, folio 63v

104

Plate 5: Grenoble, Bibliothèque Municipale MS 843, folio 130v

105

CONSPECTUS SIGLORUM

C Cambridge, Emmanuel College MS 83, fols. 200r-201v, 204r-209v, s. xiii

G Grenoble, Bibliothèque Municipale MS 843, fols. 118r-130r, s. xiii

L London, British Library MS Royal 5.A.I, fols. 63v-89r, s. xiii

O Oxford, University College MS 58, fols. 212ra-217vb, s. xiii

R London, British Library MS Royal 9.A.XIV, fols. 203va-232vb, s. xiii

ABBREVIATIONES ET SIGNA IN APPARATIBUS ADHIBITA1

a.c. ante correctionem

add. addidit/addiderunt

cfr confer

del. delevit/deleverunt

dup. duplicavit/duplicaverunt

etc. et cetera

fort. fortasse

marg. marginem

om. omisit/omiserunt

p.c. post correctionem

praem. praemisit/praemiserunt

s.l. super lineam

tr. transposuit/transposuerunt

1 References to the books of canon law in the apparatus fontium will follow the modern standard of

abbreviations. See Brundage, Medieval canon law (London: Longman, 1995), 190-242.

106

Prologus subsequentis operisf. 203va

Compendium operis subsequentis principaliter ad hoc tendit ut questiones difficiles,

que certum continent periculum animarum et que frequencius in penitenciali iudicio

accidunt, explicet et dissoluat. Egreditur tamen quandoque more fluminis et ex

accidenti, aut tangit que plerisque penitenciali examini forsitan minus congruere 5

uidebuntur. Igitur hoc opus distinguitur in tres partes. In prima continentur ea que

specialiter ad clericos pertinent, ut est de quibusdam sacramentis, de

excomunicacione, ordine, symonia; in secunda, ea que specialiter ad laicos, ut de

matrimonio et uoto et decimis, iuramento. In tercia agitur de modo quem confessores

habent inquirendo et que penitencia cui peccato specialius iniungatur et aliis circa 10

huiusmodi plenius explicandis.

Porro quicquid fere in hoc opere asseritur decretis uel decretalibus tam nouis quam

ueteribus confirmatur, aut summorum in hac facultate doctorum sentencia recitatur.

Diuiditur autem quilibet liber per capitula et rubricas singulis capitulis prenotatas

sicut in serie uidebitur manifeste. 15

1 Trad. Text.: R

5 minus] nimis R 9 uoto] ueto R

107

<I>

Capitula primi libri

1. Qualis debet esse confessor et quod alienam ouem non admittat nisi in casibus.

2. Que exiguntur ad penitenciam et quid prosint bona extra caritatem facta.

3. De ordinibus et que sunt necessaria ad ordinum collacionem. 5

4. Quod intencio sacramentum conferentis exigitur et de baptismo occasionaliter.

5. De impedimentis ordinis et de crimine in generali.

6. De homicidio et multis eius speciebus et torneamentis et monomachiis.

7. De symonia et utrum pro sepultura aliquid licite exigatur et que licite uendantur et

que non. 10

8. Quod multipliciter committitur symonia et de transactione.

9. De multis casibus circa symoniam.

10. Opinio Cantoris de symonia et de eius speciebus.

11. De excommunicacione et eius speciebus et de hiis quorum absolucionem papa

specialiter sibi retinuit. 15

12. Quot exceptiones habet illa regula: qui percutit clericum excommunicatus est.

13. Quibus casibus communicans excommunicato non est excommunicatus.

14. Quod par parem uel superiorem ligare non potest et de excommunicato propter

plures excessus uel a pluribus prelatis. /

15. In quibus casibus non tenet excommunicacio et <de> excommunicacione postf. 203vb 20

mortem et aliis.

16. De ordinato in excommunicacione et quid iuris in similibus.

17. De aliis impedimentis ordinis, scilicet sortilegio, sollempni penitencia, infamia et

aliis.

18. Quod condicio impedit que quatuor comprehendit, scilicet seruitutem, 25

natiuitatem, bigamiam et officium.

19. Quis morbus uel quod uicium corporis promocionem impedit.

20. Quis possit ordines conferre et qua etate et quibus temporibus et de uirginibus

1 Trad. Text. <I>: L O R

2 Capitula … 37 unctione] om. L O 19 plures] pluros R

108

benedicendis et ecclesiis dedicandis.

21. Quid iuris de clerico percussore uel uenatore et de tredecim capitulis apostolice 30

regule.

22. De capitulacione predictorum et de confirmacione episcopali.

23. De Eucharistia et quid sit de eius substancia et a quibus tractanda.

24. Si sacerdos secundam missam celebret et quibus danda sit Eucharistia.

25. Quis dare possit Eucharistiam et de casibus que circa hoc sacramentum 35

contingunt.

26. De extrema unctione.

32 capitulacione] capitulacio R 33 sit] fit R

109

1. Qualis debet esse confessor et quod alienam ouem non admittat nisi in casibus

Qualis et quam subtilis debeat esse perscrutator qui aliorum suscipit confessionem

docet Augustinus dicens: Caueat spiritualis iudex sicut non commisit crimen nequicie ita 40

nec careat munere sciencie. Oportet ut sciat cognoscere quicquid debet iudicare. Iudiciaria

enim potestas hoc expostulat ut quod debet iudicare discernat. Diligens igitur inquisitor et

subtilis inuestigator sapienter et quasi astute interroget a peccatore quod forsitan ignoret uel

uerecundia uelit occultare.

Sciendum est autem quod non debet quis admittere alienam ouem sine licencia sui 45

pastoris. Si enim pastorem suum habere non potest, admitti potest in aliquibus

casibus. Si prelatus non uult licentiare subditum, adeat superiorem, ut episcopum,

licenciam petiturus uel ei confessurus. Puta si suus ordinarius sit cecus in consilio;

nam si imponit honus importabile, fiet subditus transgressor, si nimis leue,

purgatorium est uerendum ei; item si sit detector confessionum cum scandalo uel si 50

crimen / penitentis illum respicit, scilicet dampnum [est ei] datum uel iniuria, et sciatf. 204ra

eum ceruicosum, uel si inter confitendum sollicitare soleat huiusmodi personas uel

occasionem peccandi sumere auditis nouitatibus peccatorum.

Notandum quod quidam dicunt quod nullus sacerdos potest iniungere penitenciam

nisi curam animarum susceperit ab episcopo, preterquam in casu extreme necessitatis 55

quo eciam laicus. Set magis placet quod quilibet sacerdos qui per sentenciam sui

pastoris non est suspensus possit penitenciam iniungere cuilibet qui se eius

iurisdictioni uelit submittere de licencia sui pastoris. Eo enim ipso quod sacerdos est,

habet potestatem ligandi et soluendi. Regularis autem sacerdos non debet sine

mandato sui superioris alicui penitencias iniungere. Ad hoc ergo quod dicitur in 60

decretis quod monachus nulli penitencias iniungat, supplendum est: si curam

animarum non habeat uel licenciam superioris. Monachus tamen curam animarum

40 Caueat … 44 occultare] D.6 De pen. c.1 47 Si … 53 peccatorum] PET. PICT., Comp. praes., LV54 Notandum … 59 soluendi] Gl. ord. ad C.16 q.1 c.1 v. sepeliat 61 decretis] C.16 q.1 c.1, 8-10, d.p. c.19

38 casibus] capitulum primum add. L 41 nec] non L O 42 enim … hoc] hominis (hoc omnino O) potestas LO 46 enim] autem L O 48 suus] eius L O 49 imponit] inposuit L O 50 ei] om. L O | si2] om. L O 51 estei] deleui cum PET. PICT. 52 ceruicosum] coruicosum L O 54 penitenciam] penitencias L O 59 et] atque LO 60 ergo] om. L O 61 penitencias] penitenciam L O

110

habere prohibetur, in necessitate tamen conceditur.

2. Que exiguntur ad penitenciam et quid prosint bona extra caritatem facta

In penitente duo exiguntur, ut christianus sit et penitens. Ad christianitatem quatuor 65

exiguntur: fides que illuminat, spes que animat, caritas que perducit, operacio que

consummat. Ad penitenciam quatuor exiguntur: dolor de preteritis, cautela de futuris,

integra et nuda confessio, obediencia. Integra dico quia renuntiare uni peccato sine

alio uel confiteri, non ualet ad uitam eternam optinendam. Valet tamen tale bonum ad

tria, sicut cetera bona extra caritatem facta, scilicet ad tollerabilius iudicium 70

subeundum et ad presentem remuneracionem et ad habilitatem gracie. Integra enim

debet esse ut, si mutet confessorem, omnia confiteantur, maxime si recidiuauit per

mortale peccatum. Omnia enim ista ad hoc quod sit uera confessio exiguntur, ut

discreta, frequens, humilis sit et integra, nuda, accusans, uerecunda, uolens, generalis,

amara, prouida, propria, uera, dolens, indiuidualis. Et quia de difficilioribus prius est 75

expediendum, primo / tractandum est de hiis que circa clericos attenduntur; inter quef. 204rb

primo de ordinibus et eorum impedimentis diligencius est tractandum.

3. De ordinibus et que sunt necessaria ad ordinum collacionem

Ordo est potestas ministrandi in ecclesia alicui a pontifice uel sacerdote collata per

uerba ad hoc instituta. Instituitur minister ecclesiasticus ab episcopo suo uel 80

sacerdote, ut ordo psalmiste siue ille qui dicitur corona apud nos, a Lumbardis clerica,

olim a simplici sacerdote conferebatur et adhuc in Alimania et a Lumbardis confertur.

Confirmabant eciam olim simplices sacerdotes, tamen non conferebant sacramentum.

Alii ordines ab episcopo conferuntur. Quidam tamen abbates habent potestatem

conferendi ordines usque ad subdiaconatum exclusiue. 85

Nouem sunt ordines in terra sicut in celo: psalmiste ordo siue tonsura, secundus

hostiarii, tercius lectoris, quartus exorciste, quintus acoliti, sextus subdiaconi,

65 In … 75 indiuidualis] cfr ROB. FLAM., Lib. poen., 1.2 (§5-8) 79 Ordo … 84 conferuntur] ROB. FLAM., Lib.poen., 3.1 (§74) 86 Nouem … 88 episcopi] cfr ROB. FLAM., Lib. poen., 3.1 (§75)

64 facta] capitulum secundum L 66 perducit] producit L O 69 uel confiteri] om. L O 71 ad2] om. L Oenim] eciam L O 72 mutet] mittet L O R 80 hoc] hec R 86 psalmiste] primus praem. L, sicut praem. O

111

septimus diaconi, octauus sacerdotis, nonus episcopi. Quid autem ad quemlibet

ordinem pertineat dicitur in decretis.

De substancia ordinis sunt sexus, baptisma, prima tonsura, potestas ordinantis et eius 90

intencio et forte intencio ordinati et uerba. De substancia est sexus, quia mulieres

benedicuntur, non ordinantur, nec hermofroditus etsi preualeat in eo sexus uirilis;

secus in testimonio licet inueniatur quod aliquando fuerint diaconisse, set in alio

sensu dicebantur quam modo diaconus. Baptismus est de substancia quia est ianua et

fundamentum omnium sacramentorum, unde eo non habito, non confertur ordo. 95

Eodem modo quidam iudicant de prima tonsura, quia ipsa est fundamentum aliorum

ordinum. Unde illa non habita, nichil habetur, immo si ordinetur, oportet ut primam

tonsuram accipiat et reordinetur. Alii dicunt quod non habita prima tonsura quilibet

ordo confertur, unde post alios ordines sus-/-cipiat tonsuram primam et tamdiu cessetf. 204va

ab omni administracione quamdiu caruit corona, ut fit in aliis ordinibus transitis. 100

Securius est ut tales ad dominum papam mittantur; et qui coronam susceperunt a

simplici sacerdote et postea ulteriores ordines ab episcopo suspendendi sunt ab

execucione, nisi in partibus illis in quibus de antiqua consuetudine habent hanc

potestatem sacerdotes minores.

Potestas ordinantis est de substancia ordinis, quia non nisi episcopus potest conferre 105

ordines ulteriores. Episcopo catholico inest potestas ordinandi soluta et libera in suo

episcopatu, in alieno est ligata et in alterius diocesis clerico. Ligatur eciam ista

potestas in suspenso, scismatico, excomunicato, heretico. Utrum tamen ordines

conferant questio est. Antiquorum fuit opinio quod ab ecclesia per maiorem

excomunicacionem prescisus nullum confert sacramentum, licet in forma ecclesie 110

ministret excepto baptismo. Decreta autem que obloqui uidentur, secundum eos uel

de sacramento baptismi uel de sacramentis malorum intelliguntur, quos tamen

ecclesia tollerat.

89 decretis] D.21 c.1; D.23 c.2-20 90 De … 109 est] ROB. FLAM., Lib. poen., 3.2 (§76-80)109 Antiquorum … opinio] C.1 q.1 d.p. c.74 111 Decreta] C.1 q.1 c.77-91

105 non … episcopus] non (uero L) episcopus non L O 107 diocesis] diocesi L O 111 uel] et L O

112

Set ueritas est quod omnia sacramenta a precisis conferuntur, dummodo conferens

habeat per quod secundum institucionem ecclesie conferre possit. Hoc tenendum cum 115

de ueritate sacramenti queritur. Cum de eius effectu queritur, distinguitur circa

recipientem: aut sciuit ministrum precisum aut non. Si enim ignorauit, effectum

sacramenti, id est graciam, recepit, si aliud non impediat, hoc excepto quod qui

ordinatur a preciso execucionem non consequitur. Si uero sciuerit conferentem

precisum, deliquit et ideo graciam non consequitur, excepto baptismo quod ab 120

heretico licet accipere in necessitate, Eucharistiam autem non. Precisus uero qui

ministrat quodcumque sacramentum peccat, immo non precisus et in mortali

constitutus ministrando sacramentum peccat.

Notandum quod qui extra formam ecclesie ordinatur a quocumque nichil recipit. Qui

autem ab heretico in forma ecclesie ordinem accipit, set non ordinis execucionem. Set 125

circa eum potest ex misericordia dispensari ut in ordine suo recipiatur et non

promoueatur, exceptis / casibus quatuor in quibus non inuenimus dispensatum, ut sif. 204vb

quis ab hereticis se fecit reordinari, quando eciam spontanee se fecit rebaptizari,

quando eciam ad euersionem fidei se fecit ordinari preeligendo hereticum cum possit

habere multos catholicos, quando eciam per symoniam ab hereticis excomunicatis 130

quis est ordinatus. Intencio ordinantis est de substancia ordinis, ut intendat facere

quod facit ecclesia in cuiuslibet sacramenti collacione.

4. Que intencio sacramentum conferentis exigitur et de baptismo occasionaliter

Diligenter eciam considerandum est si aliqua alia omittuntur que sunt de substancia

sacramenti. Verbi gracia, in baptismo sunt duo: aqua, quia in aliquo alio liquore non 135

potest fieri baptismus, et hec uerba: Ego baptizo te in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus

sancti. Amen. Unde si truncat uerba dicendo in nomine Patris tantum uel si interrumpat

per actum contrarium, scilicet qui non pertineat ad propositum, uel si non dicit ego

baptizo, non baptizat. Item si corrupte proferat uerba sponte et ex certa sciencia cum

114 Set … 132 collacione] cfr ROB. FLAM., Lib. poen., 3.2 (§82-4) 134 Diligenter … 142 est] ROB. FLAM.,Lib. poen., 3.2 (§85-6)

115 cum] tamen R 116 queritur1] quare R 121 heretico] hereticis L O 124 ordinatur] ordinantur R129 euersionem fidei] conuersionem scienter (fidei La.c.) Lp.c., om. O 133 occasionaliter] capitulo iiii add. L135 duo] om. R | aliquo] om. L O 137 Amen] om. R | uel] et L O 139 et] om. R | certa] iusta L O

113

sciat et possit recte proferre ut errorem introducat, non baptizat. Oportet enim ut 140

forma integra sit. Idem dico in omnibus sacramentis. Si uero omittatur aliquid quod

non sit de substancia sacramenti, postea supplendum est, maxime quod sequitur

baptismum. De quo dubitatur utrum baptizatus sit, sic est baptizandus. Hec uerba

premittenda sunt: Non te rebaptizo, set si non baptizatus, ego te baptizo et cetera.

Intencio eciam baptizandi uel ordinandi exigitur maxime in adultis. Unde omnino 145

inuitus non baptizatur. Coactus autem suscipere sacramentum, id est qui suscipit

scilicet ut mortem euadat uel huiusmodi, licet fictus—quia tamen uolens, licet

condicionaliter—suscipit caracterem. De dormientibus autem et amentibus, si

sacramentum suscipiant, iudicandum est de eis secundum statum quo fuerunt

quando dormire ceperunt uel insanire uel in furiam inciderunt. Generaliter autem 150

caracterem imprimit sacramentalis operacio cum obicem non inuenit obsistentem.

5. De impedimentis ordinis et de crimine in generali /f. 205ra

Sunt autem quedam que ordinem impediunt, ne conferri debeat, et ordinis

execucionem: crimen, condicio, casus. Et primo de crimine dicamus. Crimen: aliud

maximum, aliud medium, aliud minimum. Maximum, ut incestus, symonia, heresis, 155

apostasia, homicidium et similia. Medium, ut adulterium, periurium et cetera.

Minimum, ut fornicacio simplex et similia. Post media publica, potest quis promoueri

per dispensacionem episcopi et ad pristinum gradum reparari, multo forcius si

occulta fuerint. Post maxima et publica, non datur dispensacio nisi a papa, maxime

post homicidium. Tamen post homicidium sponte perpetratum, nunquam legitur 160

dispensatum. Est tamen quedam decretalis contra set non recipitur. Et eciam post

heresim et symoniam et apostasiam non dispensatur nisi a papa. Post alia maxima

credo episcopis licere dispensare, maxime si occulta fuerint. Igitur crimen impedit

143 De … 144 cetera] X 3.42.3 (Comp. II, 5.19.2) 145 Intencio … 151 obsistentem] cfr ROB. FLAM., Lib.poen., 3.2 (§97) 153 Sunt … 166 infirmitatem] ROB. FLAM., Lib. poen., 3.3 (§100-2) 161 decretalis] cfrMANSI, 22.369-70

140 enim] om. R 144 Non] ego L O | set] om. L O | cetera] om. L O 145 eciam] autem L O | omnino]non add. L O 146 baptizatur] baptizatus L O 147 uolens] L, nominetis O, uolans R 149 eis] hiis L O150 dormire ceperunt] dormierunt L O | insanire uel] om. L, cum O 151 cum … obsistentem] tum obiceresiue obsistere potest L, cum obicem obsistentem O 152 impedimentis] impedimento L | generali] capitulumv add. L

114

promouendum et deicit promotum, ut homicidium, symonia, excommunicacio,

sortilegium, infamia, rebaptizacio, reordinacio, adherens heretico, qui differunt 165

baptismum usque ad mortem uel infirmitatem, de quibus infra dicetur.

6. De homicidio et multis eius speciebus et torneamentis et monomachiis

Homicidium fit tum facto, tum lingua. Facto: tum ipso facto, tum auxilio. Lingua: tum

precepto, tum auctoritate, tum consilio. Quicumque interficiatur indifferens

[interfector] est quantum ad promocionis impedimentum. Si occidisti uel mutilasti uel 170

signasti in causa sanguinis uel aliquod amminiculum prestitisti, si in conflictu fuisti

cui consilium uel auxilium impendisti, in quo ex aduersa parte aliquis interfectus

fuerit, nisi auctoritate ecclesie bellum sit initum, non promoueberis. Eodem modo si

auxilium aliquod impendisti ut caperetur mutilandus uel signandus. Item si litteras

legisti uel scripsisti uel dictasti uel aliquod amminiculum prestitisti, cum effectu dico, 175

sine pape dispensacione non ordinaberis.

Si abortum fecit mulier quia uim / uel metum ei fecisti uel exposicione aliquaf. 205rb

sterilitatem procurasti, non ordinaberis. Si auctoritate tua uel consilio proiectus est

paruulus qui casualiter mortuus est uel non inuentus, non es ordinandus; eodem

modo si ad iram commouisti aliquem, unde in acutam uel tertianam cecidit et 180

mortuus est, quia causa fuisti mortis sue; item si fuisti uel aduocatus uel testis maxime

contra reum cuius sanguis effusus est; si furem uel alium mutilandum proclamasti uel

insecutus es cum aliis, ita quod tuo incitamento captus est uel fugam eius quo minus

euaderet, impediuisti uel ubi lateret prodidisti, ut si est in loco ubi de iure potest capi,

quia si prodatur in ecclesia, ubi tutus debet esse secundem canones. 185

Si iudex excedat modum ei infligendo penam propter culpam iudicis cui prodidisti,

non es irregularis, sicut si aliquis sit aduocatus in causa criminali ubi de iure non est

sanguinis effusio. Si iudex propter crudelitatem effundat sanguinem, immunis est

166 infra dicetur] JOHN OF KENT, Summa, 1.718-51 168 Homicidium … 184 prodidisti] ROB. FLAM., Lib.poen., 3.3 (§103-5) 185 canones] C.17 q.4 c.8-10

165 differunt] differt L O 167 et2 … monomachiis] capitulum vi L 171 aliquod] om. L O 172 uel] et L O180 cecidit] ceciderit L O 181 uel1] om. L O 184 ut] om. R 185 ubi tutus] uirtutis R 186 cui] Lp.c.,** La.c.,tibi O, quam R | prodidisti] prodisti R

115

aduocatus a culpa, cum in tali causa de iure non soleat sequi sanguinis effusio. Iniuria

enim facta alii alium non contigit. Item medicus qui periculosas adhibet medicinas et 190

pociones, si peritus sit in illa facultate et adhibuerit debitam diligenciam, si eum non

reprehenderit consciencia, licet sequatur mors, promoueri potest, aliter non.

Homicidii uero corporalis quatuor sunt species: fit enim iusticia, casu, uoluntate,

necessitate. Iusticia, ut cum iudex uel minister occidit reum, circa quem sic

distinguendum puto: minister iudicis occidit reum aut condempnatum aut non 195

condempnatum ad mortem. Item ubi condempnatum, aut hoc facit amore iusticie aut

liuore uindicte. Item aut est iussus facere aut non iussus. Si occidit non

condempnatum, reus est homicidii quia nimis festinat. Si uero occidit condempnatum

libidine uindicte, similiter reus est. Si autem occidit condempnatum amore iusticie et

est / iussus, non peccat, alioquin peccat. Circa homicidium quod fit necessitate, scilicetf. 205va 200

quando quis occidit ne occidatur, sic distinguitur: aut culpa sua peruenit in

necessitatem aut non. Si quis sua culpa peruenit in necessitatem, sibi debet imputari et

est homicidii reus. Si uero sine culpa et potuit aliter euadere, id est si necessitas fuerit

euitabilis, ei homicidium imputatur, alioquin non est ei imputandum—supple ad

peccatum. Imputatur tamen ad irregularitatem, licet quidam contradicunt. 205

Circa illud quod fit casu, distingue an ille qui casu cecidit instabat operi licito et

adhibuit illam diligenciam quam debuit aut non. Primo casu non imputatur sibi set

casui et fortune. Imponitur tamen penitencia propter scandalum et suspenditur ab

execucione ordinis ad tempus. Alioquin si non adhibuit diligenciam quam debuit, sibi

debet imputari. Nec obloquitur decretalis uel decretum quod uidetur obloqui. Hic 210

enim culpa occidentis ibi culpa occisi mors interuenit; de hoc uersus:

Si licitus, casus non est culpabilis actus,

In reliquis, culpam reor et pro crimine mulctam.

193 Homicidii … 204 imputandumsupple] BERN. PAP., Sum. decr., 5.10.1-4 205 quidam contradicunt] Gl.ord. ad D.50 c.36, v. priuentur 206 Circa … 222 liberauit] BERN. PAP., Sum. decr., 5.10.5-9210 decretalis … decretum] D.50 c.42-4; X 5.12.8-9 (Comp. I, 5.10.9-10)

189 causa] casu L O 195 puto] om. L O 196 condempnatum2] condempnat R | facit] fuit R | aut2 … 197Item] L, om. O, aut libidine uindicte et ubi amor iusticie R 200 alioquin peccat] om. L O 202 non] item sinon culpa aut aliter potuit euadere aut non add. Ra.c. 206 cecidit] occidit L O 210 debet] debuit L O

116

Si autem illicite rei operam dedit, siue adhibuit diligenciam siue non, semper ei

imputatur. Item si sine ullo opere alicui inuito et imprudenti telum manu fugit et 215

alium perimit, non ei in aliquo est imputandum. Circa homicidium autem necessitatis,

etsi aliquando fuerit dispensatum, tamen hodie non dispensatur. Circa homicidium

casuale fit dispensacio magna, maior, maxima. Magna, ut promotus ad maiorem

gradum non in ipso set in inferioribus tolleretur; maior, ut in ipso tolleretur; maxima,

ut eciam promoueatur. Circa homicidium uoluntarium non inueni dispensatum, nisi 220

in beneficiis, set pocius contrarium. Et notandum quod non omnino liber a culpa

homicidii est qui potuit liberare a morte et non liberauit. Pueris biennibus ludentibus /

alter alterum in ignem proiecit qui et mortuus est; superstes ut ordinetur ad papamf. 205vb

transmittitur. Alter coeuum suum ludendo in brachio iunco percussit acuto, quo in

tumorem uerso uulneratus interiit; de superstite iudicandum est ut de priore. 225

Ex torneamentis quia mortes et alia mala prouenire solent, ideo prohibentur a

canonibus. Pena pugnancium ibi est, ut qui occidit reus est homicidii, quia noxius

ludus est in culpa, qui ibi occisus fuerit careat ecclesiastica sepultura si fuit unus ex

torneatoribus; non tamen communione uiatici priuetur. Nam alius sepultura non

carebit. 230

Monomachia eciam eodem modo prohibetur, nam licet Dauid et Golias duellum

comiserint, non tamen est pro lege suscipiendum, tum et priuilegia paucorum

communem legem facere non possunt. Pena clericorum in duello pugnancium est ut

deponantur. Si tamen mors uel mutilacio membri non fuerit secuta, potest circa eos

episcopus suus dispensare. Prohibetur eciam iudicium ferri candentis et aque frigide. 235

Timendum est eciam sacerdotibus facientibus benedictionem quomodo auctoritatem

prestantibus, si sequatur mutilacio membri de irregularitate, immo prohibetur ne

216 Circa … 217 dispensatur] Gl. ord. ad D.50 c.6 v. de his 220 Circa … 221 contrarium] D.50 c.44 | nisi … 221 beneficiis] Gl. ord. ad D.50 c.39 v. ut tale beneficium; X 5.14.2 (Comp. II, 5.8.1) 222 Pueris … 225priore] ROB. FLAM., Lib. poen., 3.3 (§109) 226 Ex … 235 dispensare] BERN. PAP., Sum. decr., 5.11.1-3227 canonibus] X 5.13.1 (Comp. I, 5.11.1); X 5.13.2 (Comp. II, 5.7.1) 231 Monomachia … 233 possunt] C.2q.5 c.22 235 Prohibetur … frigide] C.2 q.5 c.20

214 dedit] dederit L O 215 ullo] om. R | manu] manus L O R 216 necessitatis] quod si necessitate O, om. L222 morte] mortuis L O 224 iunco] O, telo L, uinco R 225 tumorem] timorem R 228 fuit] fuerit L O231 eciam] et in L O 234 deponantur] deponatur R | circa] contra R 236 eciam] autem L Obenedictionem] om. L O

117

faciant uel inspiciant.

7. De symonia et utrum pro sepultura aliquid licite exigatur et que licite uendantur et

que non 240

Symonia est studiosa uoluntas emendi uel uendendi spirituale uel ei annexum.

Studiosa, ad differenciam uoluntatis suis finibus contente, quia occulta non iudicat

ecclesia; uoluntas dico ut uicium denotetur; emendi uel uendendi, quia pari pena

puniuntur. Proprie symoniacus dicitur qui uendit, giezita qui emit, corita qui per

uiolenciam spirituale nititur optinere. Spirituale, ut ordines; spirituali annexum, puta 245

uocem nominantis ordinandos uel scripturam scribentis eos. Nomine empcionis

intelligitur permutacio que prohibita est, puta dare agrum pro prebenda quamuis / sitf. 206ra

empcio sine pecunia numerata.

Committitur symonia triplici munere: ab obsequio, manu, lingua. Post collacionem

autem, licet bene liberalem esse eis, qui ei fuerunt liberales, dummodo super hoc 250

pactio non precesserit uel prelocucio. Notandum tamen quod spiritualium quedam

sunt incorporalia, ut ordines, beneficia et huiusmodi, et quedam corporalia, ut uasa

sacrata, altaria et ecclesie. Pro incorporalibus dare uel accipere symoniacum est, nisi in

casibus exceptis in quibus licet dare munus quandoque a manu, quandoque a lingua,

quandoque ab obsequio. 255

A manu potest dari munus pro spiritualibus, eciam pacto precedente, ut in casibus

pro matrimonio, pro operibus spiritualibus non debitis et in casibus pro debitis, ut pro

dedicacione ecclesie. Datur procuracio pro uita eterna et peccatorum remissione, ut

elemosine que dantur ecclesiis et pauperibus; pro iure redimendo unum spirituale pro

alio in casibus ubi hoc a iure conceditur. 260

Munus ab obsequio distinguitur, quoniam aut est obsequium spirituale aut non.

241 Symonia … annexum] ROB. FLAM., Lib. poen., 3.3 (§110) 261 Munus … 267 beneficio] cfr Gl. ord. adC.1 q.1 c.114 v. ab obsequio

239 sepultura] symonia L 240 non] capitulum vii add. L 242 suis] sui L O | contente] de qua add. R244 puniuntur] punientur L O 247 agrum] agentum L, arguntum O | quamuis] non add. R 248 numerata]nuerata R 249 ab] om. L O 251 tamen] Ls.l., om. O 257 pro operibus] uel operis add. Rs.l. | casibus] casuR 260 a iure] om. R

118

Spirituale eciam ex pacto pro spirituale dare licet, ubi hoc specialiter est a iure

concessum. Temporale impendi potest pro spirituali, dummodo pactum non

intercedat. Set nonne licet seruire pro ecclesiastico beneficio? Dicimus quod sic,

dummodo dignus sit et <potest> dare pro seruicio, set dignitas attendenda est persone 265

principaliter. Set si tale seruicium sit quod naturam donacionis imminet, non potest

seruire pro ecclesiastico beneficio. Preces eciam carnales ualent pro digno. Racione

morum debet quis eligi ad beneficium, set racione beneficii preeligi, id est preferri, alii

eque digno.

Munus a lingua dare licet pro digno et accipere. Preter istos casus qui aliquid dat uel 270

accipit pro spirituali symoniam committit. De corporalibus autem, sciendum est quod

pro eis licet dare uel accipere, nisi in casibus exceptis. Excipitur ecclesia que uendi non

potest, eciam si consecrata et terra cimiteriata, de quo plenius infra, et crisma que

uendi non potest. De loco autem ad sepulturam, sciendum est aut locus esse

prophanus et uendi potest, sicut aurum ad / calicem aut sacer et religiosus, et tuncf. 206rb 275

uendi non potest pro re prophana, quia forte pro aliqua re sacra uel religiosa posset

commutari. Locus sacer est qui dedicacione pontificis sacris est deputatus, religiosus

ubi funus hominis est sepultum eciam latronis; secus est de sepulcris hostium.

Potest eciam queri utrum pro sepulcris sit aliquid exigendum. Hic distingue ut supra

de loco. Potest tamen dici quod si sepulcrum propter sui materiam fuerit preciosum, 280

racione materie uendi potest eciam ex quo religiosum factum est, set tamen alie

ecclesie et ad eundem usum <et> ad usus prophanos non, et hoc ad instar calicis

consecrati et aliorum ornamentorum que eciam impignorari non possunt in loco

inhonesto.

Potest eciam queri an pro illacione in sepulcrum aliquid exigi possit uel pro exequiis 285

in sepultura impendendis. Respondeo, nec ei cui ex officio hoc facere incumbit, ut

273 plenius infra] JOHN OF KENT, Summa, 1.280-95 279 Potest … exigendum] C.13 q.2 d.p. c.11 | ut supra]JOHN OF KENT, Summa, 1.274-9 285 Potest … 286 impendendis] X 5.3.29 (Comp. III, 5.2.1)

266 imminet] om. L, immittet O 267 carnales] carles R 268 racione beneficii] idem seruicii L O | est] et LO 271 symoniam] symonia R | autem] econtra add. R 273 et terra] uel L O 274 aut] autem R279 sepulcris] sepulcro L O 280 fuerit] sit L O 281 alie] alii L O R 284 inhonesto] honesto L O285 uel … 286 impendendis] om. R 286 sepultura] O, sepulturam L, om. R | nec] non L O | ut] est add. R

119

presbitero ecclesie habentis sepulturam. Si autem ad hoc ex officio non teneatur pro

huiusmodi obsequiis, potest exigere aliquid ex pacto, aliter de huiusmodi pactum

facere symonia est uel exactio. Praue igitur exactiones pro exequiis mortuorum et

benedictione nubencium et similibus fieri prohibentur, et pie laicorum consuetudines 290

erga sanctam ecclesiam obseruari precipiuntur, ita quod per diocesanum episcopum

compescantur qui contraueniunt. De labore tamen qui exercetur in pulsacione

campanarum et faciendis fossis et portacione aque benedicte et huiusmodi uendicio

licita est, set uendicio dandi licenciam ut pulsantur campane et feratur aqua benedicta

et huiusmodi omnino illicita est. 295

8. Quod multipliciter committitur symonia et de transactione

Multipliciter committitur symonia: quandoque in promoto tantum, quandoque est in

promouente tantum, quandoque in utroque. Si nesciente te set alio pro te laborante

aliquid habes symoniace, nisi statim cum aduerteris symoniam renuncies adquisito,

idem est ac si ipse laborasses ad symoniam. Si autem non aduertas uel alius te 300

contradicente aliquid det, non est quod tibi imputetur. Si uendendo aliquid es

symoniacus, ius conferendi tale quid / perdidisti quod solus papa tibi restitueref. 206va

potest. Unde si abbas aliquem nouicium symoniace recepit, de cetero nunquam abbas

erit sine speciali dispensacione domini pape.

Si contencio fiat super aliqua re spiritali, ut decima uel huiusmodi, inter aliquos 305

quorum uterque se credit habere ius iure potest admitti transactio. Set si obicitur quod

in re spirituali debet abesse omnis pactio et contractio, respondeo: Inter litigantes

potest res litigiosa diuidi, eciam spiritualis, ita quod nichil exterius accedat et non nisi

iudice mediante, quoniam canonicus titulus aliter non adquireretur. Set utrum aliud

spirituale dari possit, uidetur quia permutari possunt spiritualia per assensum 310

episcopi. Si autem alteruter ius se habere non credit, symoniam committit, quia

298 Si … 304 pape] ROB. FLAM., Lib. poen., 3.3 (§113)

287 presbitero] presbiteros L O 288 obsequiis] exequiis L O 291 erga] ergo R | per] om. L O294 pulsantur] pulsenter L O 295 est] sunt L, sunt Oa.c., est Op.c. 296 transactione] capitulum viii add. L297 est] om. R 298 promouente] promotore R | Si] om. L, sed O 299 habes] habueris L, habemus O300 idem] quod L O 302 tale quid] quod si tale L O 303 aliquem nouicium] abbatem nouium R306 obicitur] obiciatur L O 308 nichil] aliter add. L O 309 adquireretur] adquiretur L O 310 dari] dare L O

120

spirituale per transactione, et ita per pactum adquirit quod non licet. Qui uero se ius

habere credit non peccat, quia ius suum pocius redimit quam nouum adquirit. Quod

autem temporale detur pro spirituali, scilicet ut a lite recedatur, non credo licere ex

parte accipientis. Dico ex parte dantis, si ius in re se habere credat, non est prauitas 315

quia ius redimit.

9. De multis casibus circa symoniam

Queritur autem utrum ante institucionem uel confirmacionem electionis liceat

prestare sacramentum de indempnitate uel huiusmodi. Ad quod notandum quod post

electionem et ante confirmacionem uel institucionem potest iurare suo superiori et 320

subditis precipue tale quid ad quod sine iuramento tenetur. Illicitum autem

iuramentum prohibitum est ante et post, id est iuramentum de illicito.

Sciendum est quod beneficium non uacans non potest promitti uel concedi, nisi ex

speciali auctoritate domini pape, ne quis uideretur desiderare mortem alterius. Quia

uero hec presumpcio cessat in religiosis, eis confertur. Non dicitur autem beneficium 325

uacare, etsi uacet de iure, nisi de facto uacet. Litigiosa res nulli est concedenda.

Quidam abbas patronus cuiusdam ecclesie cuidam dedit ecclesiam et nouos imposuit

census et sic optinuit ecclesiam clericus. Ad quod notandum quod illud non licet fieri

sine auctoritate episcopi, nec eciam / ueteres augmentandi sunt census, quod uerumf. 206vb

est quando confertur ecclesia. Alio autem tempore iusta causa potest et per 330

transactionem super ecclesia litigiosa imponi potest. Nouus autem dicitur census

quicumque post Lateranum primum concilium impositus est.

Item dignitatem, ut decanatum et archidiaconatum, locare non licet. Item symoniace

ingressus religionem non potest ibi manere sine speciali pape dispensacione, ita quod

non episcopi, ita tamen quod intret quasi nouicius eandem. Item decimas emere uel 335

318 Queritur … 319 huiusmodi] C.8 q.3 d.a. c.1 | Queritur … 373 dispensare] cfr ROB. FLAM., Lib. poen., 3.3(§118-39)

314 scilicet] om. L O | a lite] O, aliter L, alite R 317 symoniam] capitulum ix add. L 318 autem] om. L O328 ecclesiam] eam L O 329 sine] eciam L O R 331 transactionem] translacionem L, translocionem O332 primum] om. L O

121

redimere uel in uadium accipere a laica non licet persona, nisi illas que de iure ecclesie

tue sunt, sine auctoritate episcopi loci in quo sunt decime et ecclesie cuius sunt de

iure. Item diuersas ecclesias sine speciali licencia domini pape habere non licet, immo

eo ipso quod aliquis suscipit secundam, priuatus est prima. Item de personatibus qui

curam habent animarum annexam. Additur eciam ut nullus in eadem ecclesia plures 340

dignitates habeat, eciam sine cura animarum.

Sciendum quod prebenda non potest diuidi. Ecclesia autem in collacione iusta potest

causa diuidi, ut porcio quedam nomine pensionis assignetur uni persone in

expectacione residui; alia porcio assignetur uicario. Si aliquis aduocet sacerdotem ad

celebrandum in ecclesia diuina, taxare non potest cum eo de principali officio, ut dicat 345

canta in ecclesia mea et dabo tibi decem; set celebra diuina et inueniam tibi necessaria, tunc

taxacio demum potest fieri de secundario.

Notandum quod annui sacerdotes prohibentur. Item suscipere ad firmam ecclesias uel

decimas clericis conceditur, set non nisi de assensu episcopi. Laicis autem simpliciter

inhibetur. Sacerdos autem ad firmam hoc modo potest habere ecclesiam, ut ad 350

officiandam ecclesiam principaliter se obliget solum Deum ante oculos habens, et si

ultra necessaria sibi sufficit ecclesia, aliquid ex condicto persone refundat.

Sciendum quod dignitates non possunt commutari nisi auctoritate domini pape.

Beneficia autem alia possunt commutari ad inuicem, ita ut principalis respectus

habeatur ad lucrum animarum et hoc auctoritate episcopi. Episcopus enim mutare 355

potest personas in beneficiis de assensu beneficiatorum communi utilitate seruata.

Item dimittere / non potest quis beneficium suum ut pinguius aliud consequatur,f. 207ra

eciam si uacauerit, nisi habito respectu ad fructum animarum. Item clerici non

possunt preloqui ad inuicem de commutacione beneficiorum, ut unus alii aliquam

summam pecunie refundat, si aliquod temporale pinguius magis annexum est uni 360

beneficio quam alii. Monasteria et ecclesie possunt, quia ibi cessat suspicio questus,

sicut beneficium non uacans eis potest promitti, quod non clerico.

339 Item] idem R 345 in ecclesia] om. L O 348 quod] que R | uel] et L O 351 officiandam] O,officiendam L R | ecclesiam] eam L O | si] Ls.l., que L O, quia R 352 condicto] dicto L O 354 alia] om. LO | respectus] aspectus L O 356 assensu] consensu L O

122

Dicunt quidam quod non potest promittere quis renunciare beneficio ut alicui

concedatur, quoniam aliquod dat uel dimittit ut spirituale conferatur et ita symoniam

incurrit. Ideo tantum cum renunciauerit beneficio potest supplicare episcopo pro 365

idoneo ut ei conferatur. Dicimus autem quod eciam dum possidet, potest supplicare

episcopo ut conferat beneficium illud illi digno magis se ibi fructificaturo et eciam hac

intencione resignare.

Utrum autem episcopus possit cum symoniaco dispensare an solus papa, sic distingue

quod si ignorante eo cui ecclesia uel beneficium adquiritur symonia commissa est, 370

episcopus potest cum eo dispensare ea racione quod tales non sunt symoniaci, licet

habeant beneficium symoniace. Si uero eo sciente commissa sit symonia, nemo nisi

papa cum eo potest dispensare.

10. Opinio Cantoris de symonia et eius speciebus

Cantor ita describit symoniam: Symonia est quocienscumque aliquid attenditur uel fit uel 375

omittitur quo non gratis conferatur uel exercetur spirituale. Primo uerbo includitur spes et

carnalis affectio; ultimo taciturnitas mala, qua mediante quis consequitur beneficium;

medio triplex munus quod attenditur in opere; et secundum hoc uidetur symoniaca

collacio facta intuitu sanguinis que fieri prohibetur.

Notandum quod in spiritualibus potest attendi finis sub fine, ut finis principalis sit 380

Deus, ut si episcopus conferat prebendam principis filio, scilicet cui non sit annexa

cura animarum, eciam diuiciis habundanti, ut per eum liberetur ecclesia a iugo

seruitutis, finis iste bonus est. Hoc uidetur Augustinus approbare dicens: Alie atque

alie uoluntates suos habent fines qui tamen referun-/-tur ad finem illius uoluntatis quaf. 207rb

uolumus beate uiuere. Et ita recte sunt omnes uoluntates, si recta est illa ad quam alie 385

referuntur.

363 Dicunt quidam] Gl. ord. ad C.1 q.1 c.113 v. pretio 375 Symonia … 386 referuntur] PET. CANT., Sum. desacr., 3.156 383 Alie … 386 referuntur] AUG., De Trin., 11.6.10

363 promittere] om. L O | alicui] alii L O 365 episcopo] om. L O 374 et … speciebus] om. L 379 que]quod L O 383 approbare] probare L O 385 alie] alio R

123

Queritur de anniuersario faciendo utrum liceat sic dicere: Dabo uobis decem ut facietis

anniuersarium meum. Videtur hoc haberi ex libro Numeri, quod liceat ubi dicitur: Ob

hanc causam conferimus in donariis Domini pericelidas, armillas, anuL Os, dextrailia et

murenulas, ut depreceris Dominum pro nobis. Item Machabeorum: Vir fortissimus Iuda 390

duodecim milia dragmas argenti misit et cetera. Finis auctoritatis supradicte in Numeri

ostendit qua intencione sacerdotes habeant recipere temporalia. Ibi enim dicitur:

Moyses et Eleazar sacerdotes intulerunt omne aurum susceptum in tabernaculum testimonii

in monumentum filiorum Israel coram Domino. Sacerdos igitur audiens supradictam

formam uerborum respicere debet ad deuocionem offerencium, ut ad causam propter 395

quam <facit>, secundario ad temporalia, ut ad causam sine qua facere non posset uel

non ita comode posset.

Circa donacionem pecunie talis facienda est distinctio: Quandoque datur pecunia in

signum et memoriale et deuocionis excitamentum, ut quando confertur ecclesie ut

eius fiat anniuersarium, ecclesia impendit suffragium pro deuocione petentis cuius 400

signum et memoriale est donacio. Sicut quis dicitur emere regnum celorum

elemosinis, cum tamen Deus elemosinam non consideret set deuocionem, sicut uidua

Domino iudice plus misit in gazophilium quam diues, quia ex maiori deuocione. Item

dantur quedam in sustentacionem et stipendium ministrorum ecclesie que licite

possunt dari et exigi, ut episcopus, antequam dedicet ecclesiam, pasciscitur cum 405

fundatore de ceteris redditibus ad luminaria et uictum ministrorum. Item similiter

pauper clericus certum precium exigit psalterio legendo cum non habeat unde uiuat.

Item quandoque pecunia datur in penitenciam et supplicium penitentis, ut quando

exigitur pecunia ab excommunicato, / maxime si auarus sit, pro absolucione habenda.f. 207va

Set tunc prelatus non debet in proprios usus conuertere, set dare pauperibus, quia 410

387 Queritur … 397 posset] PET. CANT., Sum. de sacr., 3.157; cfr IDEM, Verb. abbr., c. 37 (PL 205.126)388 Ob … 390 nobis] Nm. 31:30 390 Vir … 391 misit] 2 Mac. 12:43 393 Moyses … 394 Domino] Nm.31:51, 54 398 Quandoque … 414 reconciliacio] PET. CANT., Sum. de sacr., 3.158

387 uobis] tibi L O | facietis] facias L O 388 Numeri] om. L O 389 Domini] domus deum L O | dextrailia]dextaliam L, dextralia O 390 Dominum] deum L O | Iuda] iudas L O 391 milia] misit L O R | argentimisit] om. L O | in Numeri] om. L O 394 Sacerdos … audiens] sacerdotes igitur audientes R 395 debet]debent R 396 sine qua] quam L O 398 Quandoque … pecunia] quando datur L O 400 suffragium] suffragiaL O 402 elemosinam] elemosinas L O 403 gazophilium] gazofilacium L, gaxiofilacium O 404 etstipendium] om. L O

124

recipere pecuniam causa cupiditatis prohibitum est. Similiter in reconciliacione

inimicorum potest. Ille qui lesit, cogi <potest> dare pecuniam alteri pro

reconciliacione, cum tamen reconciliacio res spiritualis sit et dacio illa pecunie est

causa sine qua uix aut nunquam fieret reconciliacio.

Si quis clericus condicione uel pacto largiatur bona sua uel offerat, ut illa postmodum 415

pro prebenda retineat et in canonicum admittatur, nec oblacio nec recepcio potest fieri

sine recto uicio symonie. Si uero pure et sine pacto offerat bona sua rogans ut in

canonicum admittatur et bona sua in uita sua pro prebenda retineat et clerici pure

consenciant, poterit fieri sine uicio symonie. Si uero donans intendat pro temporali

consequi spirituale et clerici aliter non admitterent, uterque culpabiles iudicantur. 420

De questuariis, predicatoribus et aliis huiusmodi dicit Cantor quod quociens

exercentur spiritualia magis habito respectu ad lucri percepcionem quam deuocionem

animarum, symonia est. Operas tamen possunt locare si indigeant. Unde Apostolus:

Qui arat in spe debet arare. Glosa ibi: Non pro spe. Eciam Augustinus: Non debemus

euangelizare ut manducemus, set manducare ut euangelizemus, ut cibus non sit bonum quod 425

appetitur, set necessarium quod adicitur ut impleatur. Primum querite regnum Dei et cetera.

Gregorius dicit: Solus in opere Dei fraudem non facit qui, cum ad studia bone actionis

uigilat, nec ad corporalis Dei premia, nec ad laudum uerba, nec ad humanum iudicium,

graciam anelat. Priuata tamen gracia uidetur posse admitti in spiritualibus. Similiter

fama popularis, ut si ecclesia desiderat fauorem principis propter liberacionem 430

ecclesie et eius tuicionem petit et ideo canonicat eius filium, priuata gracia iam non est

corruptrix spiritualis operis quia seruit dextere; totum enim fit pro utilitate communi.

Item prelatus, ut mereatur fauorem populi, quatinus predicacione sua amplius /

proficere possit, canonicat uirum litteratum et honestum. Hic aura popularis seruitf. 207vb

dextere. Est enim sinistra licita et sinistra illicita que debet nescire quid faciat dextera. 435

415 Si … 420 iudicantur] X 5.3.34 (Comp. III, 5.2.6) 421 quociens … 435 dextera] PET. CANT., Sum. de sacr.,3.158-60 424 Qui … spe2] 1 Cor. 9:10 | Non2 … 426 Dei] AUG., De serm. Dom. in mon., 2.16.54427 Solus … 429 anelat] GREG., Mor. in Job, 9.34

412 lesit … pecuniam] L, sit dare cogi pecuniam O, cogi lesit pecuniam dare R 416 oblacio] obligacio L O417 rogans] rogant Ra.c. 418 sua2] om. L O 419 fieri] om. L O 420 aliter] alias L O | uterque] utique R421 quociens] -cumque add. L O 424 Eciam] est L, et O 428 humanum iudicium] humani iudicis (iudicii O)L O 429 Similiter … 430 desiderat] si L O 431 petit] om. R 435 faciat] L, facit O, facia R

125

Queritur de eo qui sollicitatur ad religionem, et dicente: Habeo pauperculam matrem et

obligatus ere alieno, non possum intrare nisi prouideatur michi in hoc. Nonne licet uendere

se ipsum ut, scilicet ea intencione, ingrediatur monasterium si liberauerit eum?

Respondeo, licet set non ex pactione precedente, quia in huiusmodi omnis pactio

illicita est. Similis casus de eo qui non uult accipere monasterium propter honera 440

archidiaconalia et suscipit hac intencione ut episcopus eximat ab omnibus

archidiaconalibus et priuilegiet. Dicit quod licet, si iniuste sint exactiones; si autem

iuste, non licet. Similiter de eo qui non uult accipere ecclesiam propter tenuitatem

dicit episcopus: Dabo tibi singulis annis quinquaginta libras. Dicit magister, si dubitat

quod propter paupertatem incidat in rapacitatem uel aliud periculum, bene potest 445

sacerdos exprimere in ingressu suo quod non sufficit ei beneficium, et sic uitare

periculum in quod incideret per paupertatem.

Item queritur de eo qui per simulacionem bonorum operum adquirit beneficium

utrum teneatur ad resignacionem. Respondeo, non, dummodo dignus sit, set peniteat

de hypocrisi sua. Item si optulisset multam pecuniam ad reparacionem ecclesie et hac 450

intencione ut canonizaretur, tenetur non resignare. Tenetur non, quia specialis est

intuitus et directus ad propositum. Simile si dedisset aliquid episcopo suo in summa

necessitate, eo tamen intuitu ut beneficiaretur ab eo, adiudicandum est de tacita

intencione.

Beneficii uenditort si peniteat et uelit reddere pecuniam adeptam symoniace, cui 455

reddet? Nunquid ei a quo habuit? Non, quia in pari causa turpitudinis pocior est

condicio possidentis. Respondeo, ecclesie debet restituere in cuius ignominia accepit.

Notandum autem quod si abbas uel episcopus uoluerit conferre indigno beneficium,

set nescit utrum sit dignus uel indignus, non est tuum examinare, / set credere dicentif. 208ra

436 Habeo … 444 libras] cfr PET. CANT., Sum. de sacr., 3.168 444 Dicit magister] locum non inueni, cfrPET. CANT., Sum. de sacr., 3.168 448 Item … 454 intencione] PET. CANT., Sum. de sacr., 3.175458 Notandum … 460 dignus] cfr PET. CANT., Sum. de sacr., 3.184

437 Nonne] non uni R, unde L O 438 liberauerit eum] liberauit L O 440 honera] om. L O442 archidiaconalibus] archidiaconale L, archidiaconalis O 443 Similiter] simile R 451 non1] ne L Onon2] Ls.l., om. L O R 453 adiudicandum] iudicandum L O 457 ignominia] ignominiam L O 459 dicenti]om. L O, debet Lin marg.

126

quod sit dignus. Si constet tibi quod indignus sit et tamen propter tuum dictum non 460

dimittetur, nonne ut dicit Ieronimus? Frustra niti et nichil nisi odium querere extreme

demencie est.

11. De excommunicacione et eius speciebus et de hiis quorum absolucionem papa

specialiter sibi retinuit

Dictum est supra quod unum impedimentum ordinis est excommunicacio, set quia de 465

materia ista plenius scire perutile est, ideo de ea lacius est agendum. Ad

intelligenciam ergo sequencium uideamus quid sit excommunicacio, que eius species,

quis possit excommunicare, ob quam causam, a quo quis excommunicatus possit

absolui.

Excommunicacio est ab aliqua licita et honesta hominum communione separacio. 470

Species excommunicacionis tot sunt quot communionis et ita fere infinite sunt.

Frequenter tamen due ab ecclesia infliguntur: una que separat a communione

fidelium quoad omnia, et hec maior excommunicacio siue anathema nuncupatur; alia

que separat a sacramentis et ab ingressu ecclesie, et hec minor excommunicacio

dicitur. De utraque istarum fit mencio in decretis. Minor eciam quandoque anathema 475

nuncupatur. Utraque excommunicacio quandoque infligitur a iure, quandoque a

iudice. A iure, maior et minor; a iudice, similiter utraque infligitur, maior tamen a solo

episcopo. Dicunt tamen quidam quod a simplici sacerdote maior potest infligi et ita

iurisdictionem habet. Minor excommunicacio infligitur ab episcopo et ab aliis

ecclesiarum prelatis secundum canonem. Omnis prelatus qui creatur a collegio potest 480

utramque infligere. Causa quare infligitur est sola contumacia. A iure eciam infligitur

excommunicacio, puta pro heresi et uiolenta manu in clericum. Minor

excommunicacio et pro contumacia et pro aliis culpis infligitur. Ab

excommunicacione maiore et minore, a iure lata potest quilibet sacerdos proprius

461 Frustra … 462 est] JER., Prol. in Esdr. 465 Dictum … supra] JOHN OF KENT, Summa, 1.152-66467 uideamus … 469 absolui] BERN. PAP., Sum. decr., 5.34.0 470 Excommunicacio … 480 canonem] cfrROB. FLAM., Lib. poen., 3.3 (§142-3) 475 decretis] C.3 q.4 c.12; C.11 q.3 c.24 480 canonem] X 1.31.3(Comp. I, 1.23.3)

463 De … 464 retinuit] de excommunicacione L 468 possit1] potest Ra.c. 473 alia … 476 nuncupatur] om. R480 secundum canonem] facta L O | canonem] puto, can R 481 utramque] unicuique L O

127

absoluere, nisi canon alii absolucionem reseruet; a iudicis sentencia absoluit idem uel 485

maior.

Tam maior excommunicacio quam minor tum est date sentencie, tum dande. Date, ut

quando quis ipso facto est excommunicatus, nec oportet eum ulterius excommunicari

et uitandus est, licet quidam dicunt quod non ante denunciacionem—et male, quia

denunciacio non est nisi excommunicacionis notificacio. Date sentencie est minor 490

excommuni-/-cacio, ut quando quis scienter communicat excommunicato; dandef. 208rb

utraque, ut quando quis ipso facto non est excommunicatus set dignus

excommunicacione.

Quando aliquis maiore excommunicacione excommunicatus est, sollempniter

absoluendus est, id est ante fores ecclesie, et iurabit quod stabit mandato ecclesie et 495

pignus prestabit et fideiussionem, si causa est pecuniaria, et nudus uerberabitur.

Minori excommunicacione excommunicatus priuatim et absque omni sollempnitate

absolui potest. Quando autem excommunicans reseruat sibi absolucionem, ab alio

absolui non potest, ut si excommunico pro furto quem non, nisi a me uel successore

meo uel maiori, absolui potest, nisi in casu, ut ecce Parisiensis Rome excommunicatus 500

est pro tribus solidis quos ibi furatus est. Nunquid eum mittam Rome pro

absolucione? Dicunt aliqui et periti quod sic, set secundum hoc crudele est ualde, ideo

uidetur sic distinguendum: excommunicatus quandoque tenetur simpliciter

satisfacere ecclesie, ut fur, et tunc a quolibet potest absolui; quandoque alicui certe

persone, ut contumax, qui in iudicio non uult apparere iudici, tunc ab illo solo potest 505

absolui. Tucius tamen est ut quilibet a suo excommunicante absoluatur et querat illum

nisi ita remotus sit quod, si quereretur, sumptus multum excedent rem furtiuam.

Tria genera excommunicatorum reseruauit sibi dominus papa: sacrilegos qui manum

miserunt in clericum uel personam religiosam; falsarios litterarum domini pape; et

incendiarios postquam fuerint per sentenciam ecclesiasticam excommunicati. Nec 510

487 Tam … 517 excessus] ROB. FLAM., Lib. poen., 3.3 (§144-8) 489 quidam dicunt] Gl. ord. ad C.11 q.3 d.p.c.24 v. ab ingressu

485 reseruet] obseruet L O | idem uel] idest L O 487 est] sunt L O 492 utraque] om. L O 501 Rome]romam R 505 solo] om. L O 507 sumptus] uie add. L, me add. O

128

debent prius absolui quam satisfaciant de offensa, sicut nec clericorum percussores. Si

ergo manum misisti in clericum uel personam religiosam, scilicet templarios et

huiusmodi, uel leprosos qui sunt de congregacione, de uagis non loquor, uel

auctoritatem uel consilium uel auxilium, nisi in casibus exceptis, prestitisti, a solo

papa uel ad eius preceptum absolueris, nisi religionem intraueris, quia te tunc poterit 515

absoluere abbas tuus, eciam si percussisti ante religionis ingressum, nisi enormis

fuerit / excessus. Generaliter ab omni legato potes absolui. Moniales si se percutiant,f. 208va

ab episcopo suo absolui possunt.

Dicunt quidam quod uiolatores ecclesiarum ipso facto sunt excommunicati et non nisi

per papam absoluendi, sicut uiolenti manuum in clericos iniectores. Alii dicunt, et nos 520

cum illis, quod canones hoc dicentes non sunt late sentencie set ferende. Dicunt

quidam quod qui percutit clericum degradatum incidit in canonem, set nos contra,

quia clericus non est; potuit enim ecclesia auferre ei omnem potestatem quam contulit.

12. Quot exceptiones habet illa regula: qui percutit clericum excommunicatus est

In criminibus deprehensi clerici et a laicis detineri et ad iudicem trahi possunt, eciam 525

si oportet uiolenter, dum tamen id faciant de mandato prelati. Item non balliuus

detinens clericos in carcere sine omni manuum uiolencia est excommunicatus. Item si

clerici sponte se submittant laico uerberandi, quoniam uidetur iniuriosa manus, debet

uterque excommunicari, immo probabilius est quod laicus ipso facto est

excommunicatus, quia temere manus iniecit. 530

Quod dicitur, qui mittit manus uiolentas in clericum incidit in canonem, plures habet

excepciones in quibus aut non est excommunicatus aut ab episcopo potest absolui.

Primo, si nondum quatuordecim annos compleueras. Secundus casus est si ignorabas

ipsum esse clericum uel propter tonsuram uel propter habitum irregularem. Si autem

517 Generaliter … 523 contulit] cfr ROB. FLAM., Lib. poen., 3.3 (§148-9) 519 Dicunt quidam] BERN. PAP.,Sum. decr., 5.34.6 520 Alii dicunt] HUG., Sum. ad C.17 q.4 c.5 v. anathematizamus; cfr BERN. PAP., Sum.decr., 5.34.6 521 Dicunt … 522 quidam] ROB. FLAM., Lib. poen., 3.3 (§148) 522 canonem] C.17 q.4 c.29; X5.39.1-6 (Comp. I, 5.34.2-7) 531 Quod … 559 excipiuntur] cfr ROB. FLAM., Lib. poen., 3.3 (§157)canonem] C.17 q.4 c.29; X 5.39.1-6 (Comp. I, 5.34.2-7)

520 sicut] sunt L O 522 canonem] canones R 531 manus uiolentas] manum uiolentam L O | canonem]puto, can L O, canon R 533 est … ignorabas] si ipsum ignorans L O 534 propter2] om. R

129

sciens eum esse clericum percussisti, quantumcumque irregulariter se habet, 535

excommunicatus es, nisi fuerit ab episcopo commonitus, et tamen contumax fuerit,

quia tunc non gaudet priuilegio clericorum, sicut nec arma ferens et commonicioni

prelati pertinax. Item si ex iocosa leuitate manum mittis. Item si causa discipline

percucias, dum modum non excedas, quia si excesseris, excommunicatus es.

Disciplinam dico magistri in discipulum, sacerdotis in clericum uel eciam monachum 540

diuina impedientem. Item si te defendendo percutis, quia ui uim repellere omnia iura

permittunt, hiis scilicet obseruatis ut / in continenti fiat, set non antequam percuciarisf. 208vb

ab illo. Si enim te percusserit et cessauerit a maleficio, non potes eum repercutere. Hoc

enim esset iniuriam ulcisci quod prohibetur, eciam cum moderamine inculpate tutele.

Sic autem seruatur moderamen, si illud tantum fiat quo omisso uiolencia non 545

repelleretur, et istud consciencie tue relinquitur.

Item si pro conseruanda uita propria uel salute, licet uim ui repellere, quoniam si pro

aliena incidit in canonem, quod potest elici ex littera ubi dicitur uim sibi inferentem, id

est non alii. Si uero rebus uis inferatur a clerico et uiolenciam incurrendam licet

repellere et illatam licet reuocare, scilicet cum moderamine et in continenti, id est 550

nullo actu contrario interueniente. Religiosi si se percusserint, uel abbas uel abbates

possunt absoluere. Similiter si clericum secularem percusserint ante ingressum

religionis; si post, non nisi papa. Similiter si fuerit excessus enormis qui fuit duobus

modis, ut si percuciat prelatum uel socium ad mutilacionem membri uel sanguinis

effusionem. Item abbas causa discipline potest percutere subditum, aliter ad papam 555

est mittendus. Item si percutit hostiarius quis clericum arcendo turbam ita quod non

maliciose preeligat eum, ab episcopo potest absolui. Item si inueniat quis clericum

turpiter agentem cum uxore, matre et filia et sorore, non est excommunicatus si

percuciat eum, alie persone non excipiuntur.

Item si dominus percuciat seruum suum se inuito ordinatum, non est 560

548 incidit … inferentem] X 5.39.3 (Comp. I, 5.34.4) | canonem] C.17 q.4 c.29; X 5.39.1-6 (Comp. I, 5.34.2-7)

537 commonicioni] comminacioni L O 539 modum] modo L O 540 uel] et L O 541 si] om. R542 obseruatis] seruatis L O | set] scilicet R 544 eciam] item L O R 545 Sic] si L O 547 uel salute] om. LO | ui] om. R 548 canonem] canones R 550 scilicet] sed L O 553 fuit] fit L O 554 modis] om. L, menodisO | uel2] et L O | sanguinis] non a nasu add. Rs.l. 558 et2] L, om. O, uel R 560 se] de R

130

excommunicatus. Item si mulieres, ut credo omnes, et pueri et senes, ab episcopo

absolui possunt. Si seruus percuciat eciam contradicente domino, mittendus est ad

papam, nisi hoc fecerit in fraudem, ut subtraheret se ab obsequio domini aut dominus

propter hoc sine culpa sua incurreret graue dampnum. Nam in utroque casu potest

episcopus absoluere. 565

Item si litteras domini pape quocumque modo falsasti uel auxilium uel auctoritatem

prestitisti, a solo es absoluendus papa. Falsarii autem reputantur qui litteris falsis

utuntur, / siue ignoranter siue scienter, et fautores et defensores eorum et omnes quif. 209ra

scienter habentes falsas litteras infra quindecim dies non destruunt eas et qui scienter

litteras proiciunt ut uera bulla sigillentur cum eis. 570

Breuiter ergo comprehende isti non incidunt in canonem: si quis bono zelo ducitur et

habet causam ut magister; si iocosa leuitate se percuciunt, ut scolares; tercius casus est

si inueniat eum cum matre et cetera; quartus, si uim ui repellat in continenti se uel sua

defendendo; quintus, si eum clericum ignorauit; sextus, si post ammonicionem eum

inuenerit arma portantem. Distinguitur tamen sic: illi clerici arma portantes debent 575

admoneri antequam perdant priuilegium clericale, qui preliis et enormitatibus non se

inmiscent habitu derelicto ad quos precedere debet ammonicio et potest sine periculo.

Si autem preliis et aggressuris et enormitatibus se immiscent habitu derelicto, perdunt

priuilegium clericale nulla ammonicione premissa. Similiter clerici hystriones

relinquentes habitum, postquam commoniti sunt ab episcopo, nec correcti, credo 580

quod perdunt priuilegium clericale.

Isti, etsi incidunt in canonem, non coguntur ad curiam laborare: hostiarius nisi

enormis sit lesio, claustrales cum eadem excepcione, senes ualitudinarii, pueri et

mulieres indistincte. Inimicicias capitales habentes, infirmitate graui detenti,

paupertate multa grauati: in hiis tribus casibus sic prestatur absolucio, ut reddita 585

oportunitate Romam uisitabunt. Nam si tam pauperes sunt quod ad curiam laborare

566 Item … 567 papa] ROB. FLAM., Lib. poen., 3.3 (§149) 582 canonem] X 5.39.4, 6 (Comp. I, 5.34.5,7); X5.39.13 (Comp. II, 5.18.1)

561 si] om. R 562 percuciat] om. L O 570 eis] aliis L O 571 canonem] canones R 574 ignorauit] ignorat LO 577 habitu derelicto] om. R 580 nec] non L O 582 canonem] canones R 585 ut] om. L O

131

non possunt, optinet quod dictum est. Si autem habeant expensas et laborare possint,

non ualent absolui.

13. Quibus casibus communicans excommunicato non est excommunicatus

Communicans excommunicato pluribus modis excusatur ne sit excommunicatus. 590

Iusta ignorancia, quia ignorancia facti excusat peritissimos, ignorancia autem iuris

non, nisi impuberes et rusticos, et ideo ignorans aliquem excommunicatum / etf. 209rb

communicans ei non est excommunicatus, nisi bruta et crassa sit ignorancia. Item

domestica necessitate que lex dicitur, quia per excepcionem Gregorii uxor

communicat in omnibus cum uiro suo excommunicato et uir uxori excommunicate 595

quoad reddendum debitum tantum, quia quoad hoc ad paria iudicantur, set non in

aliis. Item filius patri, scilicet non emancipatus, quia si emancipatus fuerit, non debet

patri excommunicato communicare, nisi in eadem domo cum eo habitauerit. Pater

autem filio excommunicato nullo modo communicare debet, nisi talis sit pater qui a

filio sustentetur, uel propter decrepitam etatem uel paupertatem. Item serui domino 600

licite communicant et ancille, mancipia, rustici et seruientes.

Set alibi dicitur quod uasalli non debent cum domino communicare. Respondeo, aliud

est de uasallis qui domino non cohabitant quam de seruis qui domino adherent.

Quicumque autem siue clerici siue laici adherent domino ante excommunicacionem,

ei possunt post excommunicacionem adherere, dummodo non foueant eum in errore. 605

Quicumque autem prestant auxilium siue fauorem excommunicato in malicia sua,

ipso facto sunt excommunicati maiori excommunicacione, dummodo in dominum et

in omnes fautores eius prius lata fuerit sentencia excommunicacionis. Item utilitas

excusat tam mea quam excommunicati; mea, quia si propter utilitatem meam

communico scienter excommunicato, non sum excommunicatus; item utilitas 610

excommunicati in hiis que pertinent ad eius correctionem. Item necessitas excusat,

licite enim peregrini et uiatores communicant excommunicatis in itinere. Unde uersus:

590 Communicans … 597 aliis] cfr ROB. FLAM., Lib. poen., 3.3 (§156) 594 excepcionem Gregorii] C.11 q.3c.103 602 Set … communicare] C.15 q.7 c.4

589 Quibus … excommunicatus] om. L 595 cum … suo] uiro L O 597 scilicet] sed L O 600 uel1] et L O602 cum] om. R

132

Hec anathema quidem soluunt, nec possit obesse,

Utile, lex, humile, res ignorata, necesse.

Item si sub hac forma fiat excommunicacio, excommunico eum quia uadit in Angliam et 615

omnes communicantes illi in hoc, sunt excommunicati excommunicacione iuris, quia

excommunicans dampnauit crimen, et in eum uidetur deliquisse qui communicauit

excommunicato in crimine et ideo ad excommunicatorem uel eius maiorem pro

absolucione est transmittendus. Item qui omnino coactus et inuitus communicat

excommunicato non est excommunicatus, set si per metum inductus communicet, 620

excommunicatur. Item in mea necessitate qualicumque possum ab / excommunicatof. 209va

sumere necessaria, set excommunicato subuenire non licet, nisi in eius summa

necessitate.

14. Quod par parem uel superiorem ligare non potest et de excommunicato propter

plures excessus uel <a> pluribus prelatis 625

Par parem, minor maiorem, excommunicare non potest sicut nec iudicare, tamen

metropolitanus communicans excommunicato a suo suffraganeo excommunicatus est,

non ab eo set a canone.

Sacerdos excommunicat pro furto quod ipse fecit. Nunquid ligatur? Non, quia nullus

potest se ipsum excommunicare, sicut nec baptizare, ordinare, absoluere uel 630

presentare; tamen grauius peccat et tucius absolucionem petet a superiore. Simplex

sacerdos excommunicat omnes qui furtum in ecclesia sua fecerint. Per hoc soli sui

subditi ligantur uel alterius parrochiani si ibi furtum fecerint, nam racione delicti de

eius sunt iurisdictione. De pari autem uel superiori illud non exaudio, licet quidam

contra. Nam remissiones que fiunt in dedicacionibus, illis solis prosunt quibus proprii 635

episcopi indulserunt, ergo ligaciones similiter.

626 Par … 653 absoluat] cfr ROB. FLAM., Lib. poen., 3.3 (§150-2) 628 canone] C.11 q.3 c.17 634 quidam … 635 contra] Gl. ord. ad C11 q.3 c.101 v. etiam si nos

613 Hec] hoc L O | nec] ne L O 615 et] om. R 618 uel … 619 communicat] om. R 619 absolucione est] L,eius absolucione eciam O, om. R 622 non … 623 necessitate] om. L O 624 Quod … 625 prelatis] om. L628 canone] puto, canon L O R 629 quia] cum L O 634 iurisdictione] iuridictione R 635 solis] solum L Oprosunt] prount R

133

Episcopus excommunicat aliquem post sciens et prudens communicat illi. Dico si hoc

fecerit auctoritate sibi demandata, excommunicatus est a canone; si propria,

absoluisse uidetur, si sciens hoc fecit; secus si aliter. Sicut enim si a communione se

abstraheret alicuius excommunicasse intelligitur, sic per contrarium si communicat 640

absoluisse.

Excommunicato non debet lucrosa esse sua nequicia; unde que tibi debeat, extorqueas

ab illo, ut decimas, debitas pensiones; que oblaciones autem uoluntarias et huiusmodi,

non. Conueniri enim potest set non conuenire. In aliis non communices ei, nisi que ad

eius correctionem pertinent. Quod si iurasti te soluturum debitum alicui ad certum 645

diem cum adiectione pene et ipse die illa excommunicatus fuerit, non teneris soluere,

set consigna eam et redde ei cum fuerit absolutus uel heredi eius. Si excommunicatus

moriatur et nec peierasti, nec penam incurres. /f. 209vb

In duobus episcopatibus redditus habes, excommunicatus es ab uno, alius non potest

te absoluere set habebit te pro ligato. Quod si es excommunicatus ab utroque propter 650

plures excessus uel eciam a pluribus tuis prelatis, quilibet uinculum quod inflixit, si ei

paratus es satisfacere, tollere potest. Set non ualet absolucio ad plenum, nec

denunciari debes omnino absolutus donec ultimus te absoluat.

Si propter duas causas fuisti excommunicatus et in absolucione tantum unam

exprimas, absolucio nullius est. Similter si alterum pro altero dixisti. Quod si scolaris 655

habeat secum scolarem socium excommunicatum qui ab hospicio non uult exire?

Respondeo, si comode potest, recedat; si non, remaneat et in hiis ei non communicet

in quibus potest eum comode deuitare. Sic ergo in mensa secum non comedat, nec in

camera iaceat, si aliam ibi habere possit. Hec commoditas arbitrio boni uiri

determinabitur. 660

Quod si excommunicatus celebracioni misse se ingerat et non possit expelli? Si

638 canone] C.11 q.3 c.17

638 sibi demandata] sua de mandato L O 639 fecit] fecerit L O 643 decimas debitas] quadragesima debitaR | que … autem] oblaciones L O 644 communices] conuenies L O 645 certum … 646 diem] certitudinem LO 646 ipse] ipso L O | illa] om. L, illo O 647 eam] eciam O, om. L 648 peierasti] periurasti L O655 Similter … dixisti] om. R

134

sacerdos hoc sciat ante secretum deuestiat se, alioquin exeant omnes preter duos ne

missa remaneat imperfecta.

15. In quibus casibus non tenet excommunicacio et <de> excommunicacione post

mortem et aliis 665

In quatuor casibus excommunicacionem non timebis quia nulla est: si a non tuo iudice

lata, si post appellacionem, si ab excommunicato, si intollerabilis error exprimatur in

sentencia, ut excommunico te si facias quod facere debes uel huiusmodi.

Si aliqua ciuitas uel castrum est excommunicatum, potest eorum sacerdos uel prelatus

quando uult eos conuocare ad predicandum eis et castigandum eosdem, tamen eis 670

nullum sacramentum exhibeat, nisi penitenciam morientibus et baptisma—sub

baptismate comprehenditur confirmacio.

Post mortem eciam excommunicatur quis et absoluitur, ut si aliquis sepultus in

cimiterio post probatur hereticus uel si instituit hereticos heredes uel si erat in

manifesto crimine cum decessit. Hii debent eici a cimiterio et excommunicari. Item 675

aliquis mortuus est in excommunicacione / probatur quantum potuit laborasse adf. 210ra

absolucionem et eciam manifesta signa penitencie habuisse, absoluendus est ab eo a

quo uiuus absolueretur et in cimiterio transportandus.

Nunquam pro peccato alterius est aliquis anathematizandus, nec uxor, nec filius, nec

seruus, si ei non consenciunt. Tamen omnes isti possunt minori excommunicacione 680

feriri pro peccato patrisfamilias et sacramenta ecclesiastica eis denegari. Set et tota

terra pro peccato principis potest interdicto supponi; secus pro peccato non principis,

ut balliui alicuius nobilis, cum sine periculo excommunicari possit.

Cum aliquid sub pena excommunicacionis uel officii precipitur fieri uel non fieri,

666 In … 668 huiusmodi] cfr ROB. FLAM., Lib. poen., 3.3 (§154) 673 Post … 678 transportandus] ROB.FLAM., Lib. poen., 3.3 (§158) 684 Cum … 691 non1] cfr Gl. ord. ad D.63 c.24 v. sub excommunicacionis; X5.15.un (Comp. I, 5.19.un)

664 In … 665 aliis] in quatuor casibus excommunicacionem non timet quia nulla est L 668 ut] si dicas add. LO | excommunico] excommunice R | uel] et L O 670 castigandum] castigare L O | eosdem] eosdum R673 eciam] om. L, et add. O 674 uel1] et L O 677 habuisse] om. L O 681 et2] eciam L O 682 non] om. L,ut O 683 ut] et L O 684 pena] om. L O | officii] pena add. L O

135

nunquid excommunicatus est qui uenit contra? Et hoc multis placet. Set contra: si uelis 685

dicere illam comminacionem uim sentencie optinere, dices omnes Romanos et omnes

sagittarios esse excommunicatos, quod Romana ecclesia non seruat. Ad hoc dicunt

quidam quod ubi talis prohibicio fit ab homine, est excommunicatus qui contra facit;

ubi autem a canone, est excommunicandus. Laurencius dicit quod ubi papa uel quis

prelatus hoc dicit, tanquam homo hec intendens prohibere, est excommunicatus, si 690

tanquam constitucionem faciendo, non. Cantor dicit quod illa non est forma

excommunicandi set quedam comminacio que uim sentencie non habet. Tucius tamen

est absolucionem petere quamuis ligatus non sit.

16. De ordinato in excommunicacione et quid iuris in similibus

Excommunicacio igitur impedit promocionem, quia si ordinatus es ab excommunicato 695

uel si in excommunicacione ordinatus es uel si in quocumque ordine ministrasti

excommunicatus, de cetero non ministrabis meo consilio in aliquo ordine sine pape

dispensacione, nec promoueberis ulterius.

Distinguitur tamen sic: si excommunicati accipiunt ordines, uel se sciunt esse

excommunicatos uel non recolunt factum pro quo in late sentencie canonem 700

inciderunt uel factum scientes iuris ignari nesciunt se exinde teneri. Primi, si fuerunt

seculares, a susceptis ordinibus / deponantur. In reliquis casibus episcopi absquef. 210rb

mandato pape non possunt dispensare. Hanc distinctionem locum habere credo in

beneficiis adquisitis racione similitudinis et connexitatis. In duobus casibus ultimis

possunt abbates cum suis subditis dispensare. Cum ordinatis in excommunicacione 705

minori uel ministrantibus sufficit episcopi dispensacio.

Nota quod suspensus diuina celebrans excommunicandus est. Si excommunicatus

celebret, deponendus est perpetuo et beneficio, si quod acceperit, priuandus ex quo

per annum et supra in excommunicacione permanserit. Si depositus hoc fecerit,

691 Cantor dicit] cfr PET. CANT., Sum. de sacr., 2.10 695 Excommunicacio … 698 ulterius] ROB. FLAM.,Lib. poen., 3.3 (§141)

691 Cantor] puto, can L O R 694 De … similibus] om. L 696 quocumque] unoquoque L O | ministrasti]ministrandi praem. L, ministrandi O 699 uel … sciunt] et sciunt se L O 700 uel] et L O 702 absque] sine LO 704 casibus] non primo add. Rs.l. 708 est] om. R

136

tardius ad penitenciam admittatur. Excommunicatus et suspensus, si celebrent, non 710

est dubium quin conficiant, quia hereticus conficit. De deposito dicit Cantor, si

conficeret, confectum esse quia ordinem non amittit. Respondeo, magister Ricardus

de Moris dicit non conficere. Potuit enim ecclesia auferre potestatem quam contulit,

quamuis non possit caracter auferri; sic nec stigma militi.

17. De aliis impedimentis ordinis scilicet sortilegio, sollempni penitencia, infamia et 715

aliis

Sortilegium eciam impedit promouendum et deicit iam promotum, quod quidam

intelligunt de sortilegis qui demoniis immolant uel sacramenta ecclesie contaminant.

Quid enim aliquod tale feceri, uel consilium uel auctoritatem dederit? Si publicum est,

non promouebitur nisi intret religionem; si occultum, suscepta penitencia potest. 720

Tamen nota quod sors in se nichil mali est si indifferens, ut iurare. Immo quandoque

licita est, puta si sit religionis proposito et religiosi faciendi modo et hoc precibus ad

Deum oblatis et collecto fratrum cetu super re ardua et honesta et si res aliter sciri non

possit, et hoc exemplo / Augustini qui sic consuluit beato Orosio a paganis obsesso.f. 210va

Illicita est si ista non concurrant. Unde uersus: 725

Prouideas quid sorte petas, cur, quomodo, quando.

Sub sortilegis comprehende ariolos, aruspices, incantatores, maleficos et diuinos.

Sollempniter penitens non promouebitur. Sollempnis enim penitencia non datur nisi

pro magno crimine et manifesto. Unde si ordinetur, debet deponi. Unde si clerici

grauiter lapsi fuerint, non debet eis sollempnis penitencia iniungi uel imponi; publica 730

tamen bene potest.

Alia eciam promocionem impediunt, ut rebaptizatus et reordinatus et ab heretico

711 dicit Cantor] cfr PET. CANT., Sum. de sacr., 2.152 712 magister … 713 dicit] locum non inueni717 Sortilegium … 720 religionem] cfr ROB. FLAM., Lib. poen., 3.3 (§159) | quidam … 718 intelligunt] ROB.FLAM., Lib. poen., 3.3 (§159) 721 Tamen … 724 obsesso] cfr AUG. Ennar. in Psal. (CCSL 38.211)728 Sollempniter … 731 potest] cfr ROB. FLAM., Lib. poen., 3.3 (§160) 732 Alia … 736 eis] cfr ROB. FLAM.,Lib. poen., 3.3 (§162)

711 dicit] dicebat L O 715 De … 716 aliis] om. L 717 iam] om. L O 718 uel] et L O 722 religiosi] L,religioso O R 723 collecto] collectio La.c.O | cetu] dei tu R | et3] om. R 725 concurrant] cucurant L O

137

preeligens ordinari et per symoniam ab hereticis uel excommunicatis ordinatis. Hii

uix uel nunquam dispensacionem recipiunt; similiter qui usque ad desperatam

egritudinem distulit baptizari. De symoniace ordinatis, dictum est supra quo casu 735

possit episcopus suus dispensare cum eis.

Infamia eciam promocionem impedit. Est autem irremissibilis, si sit de crimine

notorio uel de crimine maximo et non notorio. Notorium est crimen cuius testis est

populus et inficiacioni non est locus. Populum dico maiorem partem populi eciam

unius parrochie; inficiacioni dico uel dissimulacionem que iudicem mouere possit. 740

Alias dicitur notorium de quo quis conuictus est uel confessus. Remissibilis est, si de

crimine alio, et hoc a suo episcopo, nam in prioribus a solo papa. Clericus a

quocumque deponatur fit infamis, et a solo papa restitui ad famam potest. Nota quod

quidam dicunt, et male, quod infamiam per ciuilem iudicem irrogatam remittere papa

non potest; set expresse dicitur contra eos. 745

Sunt et alia que impediunt promocionem et execucionem, ut sacerdos reuelans

confessionem deponatur. Similiter clericus qui inui-/-tum trahit clericum ad forumf. 210vb

seculare deponitur, et antiquitus omne crimen quod in ueteri testamento morte

multabatur. Hoc a promouendo repellebat, set hoc hodie non tenet, sicut econtrario

iniurie retribucio hodie repellit que in ueteri testamento licita fuit. 750

18. Quod condicio impedit que quatuor comprehendit, scilicet seruitutem,

natiuitatem, bigamiam et officium

Recollige ergo predicta, diximus quedam que non sunt de ordinis substancia impedire

promocionem, scilicet crimen, condicio, casus. De crimine pro parte tractauimus.

Nunc de condicione dicendum est, in qua quatuor intelligo: seruitutem, natiuitatem, 755

coniugium et officium.

735 dictum … supra] JOHN OF KENT, Summa, 1.152-66 737 Infamia … 745 eos] cfr ROB. FLAM., Lib. poen.,3.3 (§161) 744 quidam dicunt] cfr C.2 q.3 d.p. c.7; X 4.21.4 (Comp. I, 4.22.2) 750 ueteri testamento] Dt.19:21 753 Recollige … 757 quod] ROB. FLAM., Lib. poen., 3.3 (§164-5)

734 recipiunt] recppiunt R 737 eciam] enim L O 751 Quod … 752 officium] quis morbus uel quod uiciumcorporis promocionem impedit capitulum xix L 755 est] om. R

138

De seruitute cum multa dici possint, hoc puto sufficere: quod nullus seruus est

ordinandus nisi manumittatur. Porro manumissus alius est libertus ecclesie, alius

priuati; si ecclesie, potest ordinari eciam retento iure patronatus; si priuati, non nisi

pleno iure manumissus, quod si non manumissus ordinetur aut domino sciente aut 760

ignorante; si sciente et non contradicente, non reuocatur in seruitutem; si ignorante, in

tercium annum poterit reuocari, nisi sit sacerdos. Similiter si factus sit monachus, infra

triennium reuocatur. Quod si sit sacerdos tenetur ipse domino satisfacere uel

prestando uicarium uel alio modo. Tenetur eciam ordinator quia furtiue accessit ut

sine eius licencia non ministret. Similiter eciam tenentur domino tam ordinator quam 765

presentator eius et monasterium quod ipsum recepit. Diaconus autem uicarium

prestet aut reddatur. Ceteri indistincte redduntur.

Natiuitas eciam promocionem impedit. Nam si sis liber et non de matrimonio genitus,

de iure communi non promoueberis. Ex dispensacione autem ad omnia potes admitti,

eciam si filius sacerdotis. Set quis possit in hoc dispensare? Scio tamen quod hodie 770

multi episcopi dispensant in huiusmodi. Utrum autem ex licencia domini pape

speciali an non, nescio. Legittimatur quis ad ordines, si religionem / ingrediatur; credof. 211ra

eciam quod ad prelacionem et ad omnia alia; alii contra. Legittimatur eciam quis per

sequens matrimonium, scilicet si pater suus cum matre sua contraxerit post eius

natiuitatem, nisi ipse in adulterio fuerit generatus. Credo eciam quod si aliquis non 775

legittimus ordinetur, si ingrediatur claustrum licite, potest in presuscepto ordine

ministrare.

Coniugii species, scilicet bigamia, omnis impedit promocionem. Dico autem hic

bigamum qui corruptam ducit uel qui suam post adulterium cognoscit uel qui simul

cum duabus contrahit uel qui unam de facto aliam de iure habet ut uxorem uel qui 780

successiue contrahit cum duabus, siue ante baptismum siue post. Set si quis

contraxerit cum traducta ab alio set non cognita uel forte qui cum duabus contraxit,

757 nullus … 763 reuocatur] BERN. PAP., Sum. decr., 1.10.1-2 768 Natiuitas … 777 ministrare] cfr ROB.FLAM., Lib. poen., 3.3 (§166-7) 778 Coniugii … 792 utramque] cfr ROB. FLAM., Lib. poen., 3.3 (§168-71)

757 possint] possunt L O | hoc] hec R 759 eciam] om. L O 761 in2] infra L O 764 ordinator] ordinatori LO 767 aut] et L, om. O 768 eciam] om. L, autem O 769 potes] poterit L, poteris O 770 filius] sit praem. L,sis alius O | dispensare] quod est add. L O 774 matre sua] iure L, matre O 776 ordinetur] ordinatur L, fueritordinatus O 781 quis] aliquis L O

139

set neutram cognouit, non est dicendus bigamus, nec ab ordine repellitur. Similiter

secundum multos, si aliquam corrupuisti et post cum ea contrahas, non efficeris

irregularis, quia non diuisit illa carnem suam in duos. Si autem post matrimonium 785

fornicaris uel adulteraris, irregularis efficeris, quia carnem tuam diuidis—et hoc

secundum multos, quod non credo—si ante matrimonium, non <diuidis>. Respondeo,

igitur quare oportet quod uxor eius qui ad sacros ordines accedere debet sit uirgo, et

ipse tamen non ad hoc tenetur. Assignatur et hec probacio; et prohibicio de bigamo

non ordinando tam stricta est quod dominus papa cum nullo dispensat, quia esset 790

contra apostolum. Idem iudico de eo qui iurauit uel fidem dedit duabus et post

cognouit utramque.

Nunc de officio dicendum. Quedam officia promocionem impediunt, ut curialium, set

nota quod dicuntur curiales a cruore , qui membra dampnatorum truncant uel

sanguinem fundunt; item iudices in causa sanguinis; item hystriones qui ludibria sui 795

corporis exercent uel ursos ducunt et symias. Omnes isti arcentur ab ordine; similiter

aduocatus, testis et assessor in causa sanguinis et accusator. Immo prohibetur ne

clericus intersit uindicte sanguinis exercende uel litteras dictet aut scribat pro

huiusmodi aut uiris sanguinum preponatur. Nec illam cirurgie partem subdiaconus et

supra exerceat que ad-/-ustionem uel incisionem indicit.f. 211rb 800

Sunt et alii curiales, scilicet milites qui annexi sunt nexibus rei publice, qui promoueri

non possunt, nec transire ad religionem sine principis auctoritate. Sunt et alii curiales

qui astricti sunt raciociniis principum, qui arcentur ab ordinibus quia multi eorum

sunt infames et irregulares, et quia sepius molestatur ecclesia cum repetuntur, et quia

non uoto religionis set ad effugiendum raciocinia surrepunt ad ordines. Possunt 805

tamen isti ordinari, si liberentur a racioniis et ecclesie tradantur.

784 secundum multos] ROB. FLAM., Lib. poen., 3.3 (§168) 790 dominus … dispensat] cfr X 1.21.4 (Comp.III, 1.14.1) 791 contra apostolum] 1 Tm. 3:2 793 Nunc … 806 tradantur] cfr ROB. FLAM., Lib. poen., 3.3(§172-3)

784 corrupuisti] corupisti L O 789 hec probacio] om. R 791 iudico] dico L O 798 aut] uel L O800 indicit] inducunt L, inducit O 805 non] non sunt L O

140

19. Quis morbus uel quod uicium corporis promocionem impedit

Restat tercium scilicet casus. Casum hoc uoco euentum aliquem in corpore humano

qui promocionem impedit, ut est morbus uel uicium corporis. Omne ergo tale quod in

celebracione scandalum introducit promocionem impedit. Morbus, ut lepra, impetigo, 810

enormis in facie, id est sicca scabies, epilensia, apoplexia. Omnia siquidem que faciunt

cessare promotum impediunt promouendum. Tamen de epilentico, id est ille qui

morbo caduco cadit, distingue: si talis promotus non fuerit, non promoueatur; si

promotus et plene curatus, admittitur ad sua officia; si non plene curatus et frequenter

ei accidit, repellitur; si non frequenter, et cadit cum spume iactacione et confusi 815

sonitus emissione, sic non ministrabit; uel non <frequenter> et <cum istis duobus>, sic,

si a tergo potest habere coadiutorem. Hec distinctio colligitur idem de aliis morbis.

Tamen si semel sit a demonio arreptus, perpetuo cesset, ut pluribus placet; alii contra,

set ego primos sequor.

Vicium quoque corporis, scilicet membri magni, promocionem impedit; illud scilicet 820

quod magnam deformitatem inducit, set et promotus cessat. Si autem non inducit

magnam deformitatem, puta si lateat et sine scandalo aliorum uel non incidit culpa

uiciati, et tunc dispensacione promouetur, uel incidit culpa uiciati et tunc non

promouebitur. Quin eciam promotus deicitur tanquam sui homicida, quia alii

committere se secandum licet iusta causa, puta timore lepre / uel alterius infirmitatis.f. 211va 825

Se ipsum autem si secet quis, licet eciam bonus cirurgicus sit, irregularis efficitur. Illud

friuolum dicimus quod non potest aliquis celebrare nisi habeat uirilia secum sicca uel

puluerizata.

Membrum dicitur magnum quantitate uel decore, ut oculus, nasus, pes, manus, tres

digiti primi dextere. Qui oculum amisit non debet promoueri. Item generale est, si 830

aliquis alium irregulauerit scienter, ipse irregularis efficitur. Qui claudus per

808 Restat … 834 debet] cfr ROB. FLAM., Lib. poen., 3.3 (§173-6) 818 Tamen … contra] Gl. ord. ad D.33 c.3v. de iis

807 impedit] capitulum xix add. L 808 tercium] certum R | corpore] corde R 812 ille qui] illo R815 accidit] acciderit L O | et1] uel R 816 sic2] om. L O 817 si] om. R 821 et] eciam L O 822 uel] est L O823 promouetur] L, prouetur O, om. R | uel … non] om. R 825 puta] priuata L O 828 puluerizata] pulueridata R

141

infirmitatem efficitur a promocione non repellitur. Similiter si digitum sinistre manus

amisit. Generaliter ergo si non potest brachium leuare uel signacula ordinate facere,

celebrare non debet.

20. Quis possit ordines conferre et qua etate et quibus temporibus et de uirginibus 835

benedicendis et ecclesiis dedicandis

Restat uidere alia impedimenta ordinis. Sciendum igitur, ut dictum est, quod solius

episcopi et non inferioris est de iure omnes ordines conferre. Secus est in quibusdam

partibus quod abbates et sacerdotes minores ordines conferunt. Si episcopus qui

resignauit, te ordinauit, distingue: nam si renunciauit tantum loco, omnes ordines 840

conferre potest tamen rogatus; si loco et ordini, minores tantum. Si maiores confert,

ordinatus execucionem non habet; potest tamen episcopus dispensare cum ignorante

et papa consenciente.

Nota quod prima tonsura debet conferri non ante annum septimum; acolitatus, non

ante annum duodecimum; subdiaconatus, non ante octauum decimum; diaconatus, 845

non ante annum uicensimum quintum; presbiter, non ante tricensimum annum

expletum, quo tempore episcopus fieri potest et in episcopum eligi, eciam si non sit

nisi subdiaconus. Item nota quod prouectiores infra septennium omnes ordines

recipere possunt, set eciam necessitate cogente monachus infra annum. Laicus infra

annum et dimidium omnes ordines suscipere potest. 850

Tempora ordinandi sunt sex generalia. In sabbatis, scilicet quatuor temporum, et

mediane ebdomade, scilicet sabbato Scicientes, et in uigilia Pasche. Alio tempore non

nisi mi-/-nores ordines conferri possunt, preterquam a Romano pontifice, set necf. 211vb

minores alio tempore sunt conferendi, nisi paucis et in die sollempni. Si autem quis in

aliquo dictorum sabbatorum non sit ordinatus, potest ordinari in mane dominice 855

837 Restat … 843 consenciente] cfr ROB. FLAM., Lib. poen., 3.4 (§177) 844 Nota … 850 potest] cfr ROB.FLAM., Lib. poen., 3.4 (§181) 851 Tempora … 857 alius] cfr ROB. FLAM., Lib. poen., 3.4 (§185)

832 non] om. L O 833 uel] et L O 836 dedicandis] capitulum xx add. L 840 renunciauit] reanciauerit La.c.,resignauerit Lp.c., renunciauerit O 843 et] L, om. O R | consenciente] consciente R 844 tonsura] non add. LO | non2] om. L O 845 annum] om. R 846 annum1] om. R | presbiter] presbiteratus R 851 scilicet] om. R854 alio] alie R | et] om. R

142

sequentis, continuato ieiunio tam ordinandi quam ordinantis, ita tamen quod duo

ordines non conferantur eidem, scilicet sabbato unus, et dominica alius.

Episcopus autem potest omni die dominico et non alio consecrari; uirgines benedici in

diebus festis apostolorum et dominicis; ecclesie autem omni die possunt consecrari.

De clerico per saltum promoto, sciendum quod penitencia condigna imposita poterit 860

in ordine suscepto ministrare, prius tamen recepto ordine quem transiuit. Quod si

aliquis factus sit episcopus subdiaconatu uel alio ordine pretermisso, ordinem habet

episcopalem, set subdiaconatum dare non poterit quem non habet. De non ordinato

ministrante, sciendum quod nunquam est promouendus ad sacerdocium, quin eciam

ab ordine suspendendus. De eo qui furtiue ordinem suscepit, sciendum est quod est 865

deponendus, precipue si sub excommunicacione fuit prohibitus. Alioquin cum eo

poterit dispensari, si claustrum ingreditur. Idem iudicium de eo qui plures ordines

simul suscepit.

Quid dicendum est de ordinato in excommunicacione uel suspensione uel ab

excommunicato uel suspenso supradictum est in tractatu de excommunicacione et 870

symonia.

21. Quid iuris de clerico percussore uel uenatore et de tredecim capitulis apostolice

regule

Quoniam dicit apostolus clericum non debere esse percussorem, ideo de hoc

uidendum. Sciendum igitur quod in talibus quatuor attendenda sunt: persona 875

uerberantis et ueberati, meritum et modus uerberum. In persona ueberantis: dignitas,

potestas et animus. Dignitas, quia episcopus propria manu nullum uerberare debet.

Potest tamen id per alium efficere. Animus inspicitur, si id <faciat> animo non

corrigendi uel odio. Potestas, ut si super uerberandum habeat potestatem.

869 Quid … 871 symonia] cfr ROB. FLAM., Lib. poen., 3.4 (§186) 870 supradictum est] JOHN OF KENT,Summa, 1.152-66 874 Quoniam … percussorem] 1 Tm. 3:3 | Quoniam … 887 excommunicacione] BERN.PAP., Sum. decr., 5.21

856 ordinandi] ordinati L O 864 ministrante] ministrande R 865 est quod] quod non R 866 fuit] fuerit L O867 dispensari] dispensare L O | ordines] om. L O 872 Quid … 873 regule] om. L 876 dignitas … 877animus] om. R 878 faciat] addidi cum BERN. PAP. | non] om. L O 879 odio] actio L, a dicto O

143

In persona uerberandi tria consideranda sunt: etas, ordo, religio. Etas, quia puer facile, 880

/ senex rarissime uerberatur. Ordo, quia in minoribus constituti ordinibus possuntf. 212ra

uerberari, sacerdotes non. Religio, quia religiosi discipline corporali subduntur,

cuiuscumque sint ordinis a prelato uel alio clerico eius iussu. Nam si laicus iussu

abbatis aliquem uerberet, incidit in canonem uterque. Facilitas emendandi attenditur

et pertinacia standi, nam hec grauius punitur quam illa. In modo uerberum tria 885

consideranda sunt, scilicet ut leuis sit, pro occulto occulta, pro manifesto manifesta.

Aliter percuciens anathema incurrit, nisi in casibus dictis supra de excommunicacione.

Clericus uenator aut cesset aut deponatur. Est igitur uenacio illicita tribus modis: ex

persona, ut clericus; ex causa, ut si fiat causa uoluptatis; ex tempore, ut si fiat tempore

ieiunii sollempnis. Permittitur autem clericis piscari, quia non fit cum clamore sicut 890

uenacio. Unde pedicas et laqueos et alia facere ad capiendas feras non est prohibitum.

Oportet igitur ut breuiter perstringamus quod ordinandus in diaconum et supra

careat tredecim uiciis apostolica regula comprehensis, unde uersus:

Sit sine crimine, monogamus, non uino repletus,

Sit sobrius, prudens, ornatus in hospite, letus, 895

Vita pudica docens, non percutit, immo modestus,

Sit sine litigio, liberque cupidine questus,

Ac bene prepositus domui, nec neophitus sit,

Talis apostolica quod presit regula iussit.

22. De capitulacione predictorum et de confirmacione episcopali 900

Ecce de difficilioribus, ordine, symonia, excommunicacione, aliisque, aliqua diximus.

Nunc de reliquis sacramentis in quibus sepe periculose erratur alia, breuiter

884 canonem] C.17 q.4 c.29; X 5.39.1-6 (Comp. I, 5.34.2-7) 887 dictis supra] JOHN OF KENT, Summa,1.525-89 888 Clericus … 891 prohibitum] BERN. PAP., Sum. decr., 5.22 893 tredecim … comprehensis] 1Tm. 3:1-13

883 sint] sunt R | laicus] lacus R 884 canonem] canones R 885 standi] status L O | punitur] puniuntur L OR 886 sunt] om. R 887 nisi] ut L O 889 clericus] clericis R 894 Sit … repletus] om. L O | uino] uite R898 prepositus] propositus R 900 capitulacione] capitulacio L R | episcopali] episcoporum capitulum xxii L901 aliqua] alia R

144

perstringamus. Sunt igitur septem principalia sacramenta: baptismus, confirmacio,

Eucharistia, ordo, matrimonium, penitencia, extrema unctio. De tribus iam diximus,

scilicet de baptismo, de ordine, de penitencia; nunc de ceteris uideamus. Sciendum 905

igitur quod confirmacio hodie a solis episcopis datur, ab aliis si datur, nichil datur.

Nam antiquitus a sacerdotibus conferebatur iussu episcopi. / Quare ergo hodief. 212rb

presbiter nichil confert cum episcopus prohibitus et excommunicatus ordinem

conferat. Notandum quod ubi quis habet aliquid ex officio habiti ordinis, confert licet

prohibitus; si ex demandacione uel amminiculo habiti ordinis, tunc prohibitus non 910

confert sicut hic fuit; hoc secundem Vincentium. Si igitur fuerit omissa confirmacio,

usque ad decrepitam etatem suppleatur. Similiter si per errorem fuerit quis non

crismate set oleo delinitus, debet suppleri quod omissum est; similiter si quis sine

manus imposicione fuerit diaconus ordinatus; eciam in omnibus sacramentis idem

iudico. Hic determinandum quod hoc sacramentum a ieiunis sumi et dari debet, sicut 915

Eucharistia et ordo, eciam hoc propter omnium reuerenciam sacramentorum.

23. De Eucharistia et quid sit de eius substancia et a quibus tractanda

De Eucharistia sciendum est quod, ad hoc quod conficiatur, exigitur ex necessitate:

ordo sacerdocii et materia panis triticei, non alterius grani, sicut illud: nisi granum

frumenti et cetera. Nec eciam farina sufficeret, nisi formata in panem, sic nec uua, nisi 920

exprimatur in uinum. Usus eciam de panno intincto lauando reprobatur cum

distinctione, scilicet si sit ibi adhuc humor uel non sit. Item ex aceto non conficitur,

quia non habet proprietates substanciales uini, cum sit substancialiter frigidum,

uinum uero calidum. Similiter non credo confici, si tantum admiscetur de aqua ut

uere possit dici istud non est uinum. Set tantillum aque debet apponi ut absorbeatur a 925

uino; et tucius ut sit uinum rubeum quam album propter similitudinem coloris

sanguinis, et quia sepe accidit aquam pro uino albo infundi, et hoc statutum est in

905 Sciendum … 907 episcopi] cfr ROB. FLAM., Lib. poen., 3.1 (§74) 911 secundem Vincentium] cfr Gl. ord.ad X 1.7.1 v. confirmasse (Comp. III, 1.5.1) 918 De … 919 grani] Conc. Lat. IV, c.1 | De … 948 episcopus]cfr ROB. FLAM., Lib. poen., 3.2 (§87) 919 nisi … 920 cetera] Jn. 12:24 922 Item … 926 uino] PET. CANT.Sum. de sacr. 3.293

908 nichil] ut R 909 licet … 910 prohibitus1] om. L O 910 si] sed L O 914 ordinatus] om. R | eciam] et LO 917 tractanda] capitulum xxiii add. L 918 est] om. R | necessitate] ad sacerdocium add. L O927 sanguinis] sanguinei R

145

synodo Parisius et Rothomogensis.

Exigitur ergo materia uini cum necessitate et aque secundum quosdam, tamen si non

apponatur aqua, dicunt multi quod uinum transsubstanciatur, precipue si ex 930

obliuione sit omissa, non ut heresis introducatur. Quod si aqua offertur sine uino non

fit transubstancio quia sanguis rubricauit aquas baptismi, set non econuerso et

precipue exiuit sanguis de latere Christi non aqua. / Vera tamen exiuit aqua, nonf. 212va

fleugma, sicut multi mentiti sunt. Similiter si aliquis hodie celebrat ex fermentato, non

auderem dicere quod non conficeret, presertim si ex negligencia; nam et Greci sic 935

facere dicuntur. Forma uerborum quam Christus instituit de substancia est, et grauiter

peccat qui addit uel subtrahit, transponit uel mutat aliquid de forma, maxime si

heresim intendit introducere, quamuis secundum philosophum nomina et uerba

transposita idem significent: nec utile per inutile uiciatur.

Quod si post consecracionem uinum cognoueris pretermissum, si potes sine scandalo, 940

appone uinum et reincipe uerba consecracionis ab eo loco, Simili modo. Si autem sit ibi

scandalum plurimorum, apposito uino panem consecratum, sicut in die Parasceues,

debes inmittere sicque sumere sacrificium. Nondum est enim ecclesie reuelatum an in

tali casu, maxime cum non sit ex certa sciencia consecretur panis sine uino. Alii dicunt

tucius esse quod talis hostia detur alicui qui credatur ad id ydoneus. Sin autem 945

reseruetur seorsum donec post missam et tunc sumatur a sacerdote ipso post

sumpcionem consuetam. Noua uero hostia ponatur sicut fieri solet ante calicem et

reincipiatur canon Misse a Te igitur; sic docuisse dicitur Maurus Parisiensis episcopus.

Sacramentum hoc non nisi a mundis tractandum est. Unde si pollucio proueniat ex

crapula cum turpi ymaginacione et motu, prohibet in crastino et a percepcione et a 950

928 synodo … Rothomogensis] MANSI, 22.682; cfr IBID., 22.897-924 929 Exigitur … 931 introducatur] D.2De con. c.2, 7; cfr GER. WAL., Gem. Eccl. I, 44; PET. CANT. Sum. de sacr. 1.64 935 nam … 936 dicuntur]PET. CANT. Sum. de sacr. 3.293 936 Forma … 939 uiciatur] INN. III, De mys. (PL 217.869) 940 Quod … 941modo] cfr LANF., Dial. in heret. Bereng. Turon; INN. III, De mys. (PL 217.873) 944 Alii … 948 episcopus]PET. PICT., Comp. praes., XXXVIII

929 cum] ex L O 930 transsubstanciatur] substanciatur R 933 precipue] principaliter L O | de] a L O938 intendit] intendat L O 939 nec … uiciatur] om. L O 941 reincipe] reincipere L O 948 episcopus]episcopo R 949 ex … 950 crapula] om. L O 950 ymaginacione] L, ymaginatorem O, ymagine R | motu]motum R

146

confectione; si sine, tunc a confectione tantum. Si ex precogitacione, prohibet ab

utroque. Istud tamen non possunt tenere sacerdotes parrochiales soli in necessitate, ut

propter sollempnitatem et funus; in quorum casu, eciam si sit in mortali, pocius debet

conterens celebrare quam populum scandalizare. Item pocius debet conterens

celebrare quam simulare se celebrare cum non celebret. Excommunicatus et 955

suspensus, ut fornicator notorius, si celebret, celebratum est; tamen nullus missam

eius audire debet. Quid / autem sit notorium supra dicetur.f. 212vb

24. Si sacerdos secundam missam celebret et quibus danda sit Eucharistia

Si sacerdos secundam missam celebrare debeat ea die post sumpcionem sanguinis,

consilio meo nichil sumat. Quod si sacerdos quocumque casu cepta misteria complere 960

non possit, reuestiat se alius et incipiat ubi ipse dimisit, ita tamen quod, si facta sit

interrupcio in uerbis dominicis, totum incipiat quod est de substancia. Si uero sic

accidat in ordinibus, totum a capite reincipiendum est ab alio episcopo, quia ibi

nescitur quid sit de substancia. Caueat tamen sacerdos quantum potest ne duas

missas celebret nisi summa necessitate, puta propter funus. Set nec propter speciales 965

et priuatas missas debet officium diei intermittere.

Restat uidere quibus dandum sit et sciendum quod suspendendis, si exigant et

conterantur, non est deneganda Eucharistia secundum canones, et in hoc multi, si

peniteant et petant, concordant. Tamen quia ecclesia non habet hoc in usu, emulandus

est usus: credat igitur et manducauit. Set nec sepultura talibus conceditur, quia cui 970

unum sacramentum negatur et alia. Speciale tamen in torneatoribus qui, si ibi

moriuntur, uiaticum habebunt; sepultura tamen carebunt.

Hystrionibus aut lecatoribus et meretricibus non est danda Eucharistia, eciam in die

Pasche, propter honorem ecclesie, nisi conuertantur. Aliis eciam peccatoribus non

957 supra] JOHN OF KENT, Summa, 1.738-46. 968 secundum canones] C.13 q.2 c.30 970 credat … manducauit] D.2 De con. c.47

951 sine] non L O 952 necessitate] solmnitate L O 953 quorum] quo L O 954 conterens1] iterans L O,conuerens Ra.c. | conterens2] iterans R 956 si] cum L, om. O 957 supra] infra L O R 958 Eucharistia]capitulum xxiiii add. L 959 ea … post] eo die post suscepcionem uel L O 963 alio] alia L, illo O974 eciam] autem L O

147

notoriis, si in publico petant, non potest denegari. Monere tamen debet sacerdos 975

occulte ne sumant. Ego tamen, si scirem petentem aliquid magicum, inde facturum

non porrigerem, set pocius caute illuderem; alii contra. Similiter, si scirem pro certo

uel uehementer presumerem quod incontinenti post sumpcionem uomeret, non

porrigerem, set monerem credere et manducaret. Grauiter infirmanti qui glutire non

potest, paruissimam porciunculam porrigo uel in uino uel sine uino. 980

De pueris qui non intelligunt quid accipiunt, puta infra septennium, michi uidetur

sanius non dare eis, licet quidam contra / per quoddam decretum quod dicit puerisf. 213ra

dandam esse Eucharistiam. Set littera que ibi inseritur calumpniam habet, non enim

est in multis decretis. Idem dicerem de furiosis, si timeatur de reiectu, alioquin

communicandi sunt, si ante furorem hoc pecierint. Neque enim hoc sacramentum tale 985

est sine quo non fit salus nisi contempnenti.

25. Quis dare possit Eucharistiam et de casibus que circa hoc sacramentum contingunt

Presbiter per se ipsum communicet infirmum, nisi in summa necessitate, nam tunc

potest per diaconum. Set et tunc caueat diaconus ne nuda manu Eucharistiam tangat,

set uel super patenam eam ponat uel aliquem pannum interponat; idem dicunt de 990

subdiacono. Secundum Cantorem nullus se ipsum communicare debet, nisi celebret.

Unde in mortis periculo pocius a diacono, si presens sit, communicet quam sibi sit

auctor. Quod si non sit, non credo peccare, si accipiat cum timore. Quod si celebret et

non communicet, per annum a communione suspenditur. Similiter grauiter delinquit

conficiens qui corpus sine sanguine sumit. 995

In mortis articulo pocius decederem sine uiatico quam acciperem de manu heretici;

secus est de baptismo. Cotidie autem communicare nec laudo nec uitupero, tamen

consilio meo ter in anno communicandum, scilicet Pascha, Pentechosten et Natali uel

977 alii contra] cfr D.2 De con. c.67-8 982 decretum] D.2 De con. c.93 990 idem … 991 subdiacono] D 23c.26; D.50 c.68 991 Secundum Cantorem] PET. CANT. Sum. de sacr. 3.15 (appen. IV, 663) 997 Cotidie … 999 Christiano] Conc. Lat. IV, c. 21

976 tamen] autem L O 978 sumpcionem] suscepcionem L O 980 potest] possunt L O 986 fit] sit L O987 contingunt] xxv add. L 989 et] om. L O 990 dicunt] dico L O 992 pocius] presbiter L, potestsubstantialiter O 994 suspenditur] suspendatur L O

148

saltem in Pascha; alioquin non habetur pro Christiano. Nec est abstinendum a

communione, nisi pro mortali peccato. 1000

Restat de periculis que circa hoc sacramentum contingunt et primo notandum quod, si

per negligenciam aliquid de sanguine stillauerit in terram, lingua lambetur a ministro,

locus radatur et igne consumatur et cinis infra altare condatur et sacerdos quadraginta

diebus peniteat, nec celebret; si super altare nudum stillauerit, sorbeat minister stillam

et tribus diebus peniteat, nec celebret, quos intelligo in pane et aqua infligendos cum 1005

aliqua alia penitencia. Si usque ad secundum lintheum altaris stilla peruenerit,

quatuor die-/-bus; si usque ad tercium, nouem; si ad quartum, triginta et lintheaf. 213rb

perfecte abluantur, calice supposito et prima aqua sumatur, alie iuxta altare

recondantur. Hoc totum dicitur in decretis. Hodie tamen multi excindunt particulam

linthei ubi stilla cecidit et in techis ponunt pro reliquiis reliqua parte resarcita et in 1010

usus pristinos remanente. Quod si super corporalia ceciderit, integra cum reliquiis

reponantur, prius tamen lauentur et aqua sumatur.

Si quis per ebrietatem Eucharistiam uomerit, quadraginta dies peniteat, clerici uero

amplius; si per infirmitatem, septem dies. Illum uomitum quidam iudicant

conburendum. Nos consulimus ut si forme aliquid supersit, resumatur. 1015

Si musca uel aranea in sanguine ceciderit, sumatur sanguis. Post loto uermiculo

sumatur ablucio semel uel bis, deinde ponitur uermis in sacrario. Sunt quidam magne

fidei qui cum sanguine pariter sumunt quicquid inciderit. Audiuimus de quodam

magno episcopo qui scienter hausit uenenum cum sanguine propinatum et mortuus

est. Ego nunquam temptarem Deum, dummodo racionabili consilio haberem quid 1020

facerem.

Eucharistia inueterata igne conburenda est et cinis iuxta altare sepeliendus, ut dicitur

in Consilio Aurelianorum capitulo quinto; idem si uermis inueniatur ibi, ut ibi dicitur.

1001 si … 1012 sumatur] D.1 De con. d.p. c.27 1009 decretis] D.2 De con. c.28 1014 quidam iudicant] cfrD.2 De con. c.28 1016 Si … 1021 facerem] GER. WAL., Gem. Eccl. I, 44 1022 Eucharistia … 1023 dicitur]cfr BURCH., Decr. 5.50 (PL 140.762)

1001 circa] L, ita O, contra R 1004 nec celebret] om. R 1009 Hoc] hec R 1015 forme] forte R1017 ponitur] ponatur L O

149

Si ceciderit sacrificium de manu terratenus, ut non conculcetur quicquid ibi inuentum

fuerit comburatur et cinis, ut supra dicitur, abscondatur, et cui accidit medium annum 1025

peniteat, si non inuentum fuerit sacrificium; si inuentum, uiginti dies.

26. De extrema unctione

De extrema unctione sciendum est quod sacerdos cum uno clerico uel eciam solus si

necesse sit, potest infirmum inungere et non datur hoc sacramentum nisi adultis,

quod intelligo quam cito doli capax est, quia malicia supplet etatem. Nec datur eciam 1030

nisi petere scientibus uel non obsistentibus et infirmis, quod colligitur ex uerbis

quibus institutum est / et oracionibus que a sacerdote ibi dicuntur. Operatur autemf. 213va

effectum suum non solum in intelligentibus, quid faciat circa illos, set eciam

ubicumque non inuenit obicem obsistentem, puta in furiosis, morientibus et

dormientibus. Item cecus a natiuitate nichilominus inungendus est in oculis et dicetur: 1035

indulgeat tibi Deus quicquid deliquisti per uisum propter uisum ymaginarium quo

ymaginatus est uanitatem. Secundum Cantorem et ita de aliis sensibus. Neque enim

propter uarietatem subiecti forma uariabitur sacramenti.

Suspendendis autem secundum usum ecclesie non datur, sicut nec alia sacramenta,

nec quidem non penitenti. Item per hoc quod dictum est supra, quod hec unctio non 1040

est facienda nisi egroto; exclusa est obiectio de aliquo sano statim occidendo qui post

confessionem et communionem petit hoc sacramentum; talis enim infirmus ex

egritudine non est. Mulieri laboranti in partu, si timor mortis est et petat, potest

exhiberi. Iteratur hoc sacramentum secundum consuetudines diuersarum

ecclesiarum, alii de anno in annum, ut Cisterciences, alii si conualuerit infirmus et 1045

exeat monasterium, ut <dicit> Cantor. Ego iudico sequendam consuetudinem ecclesie

ubi fuerit infirmus. In terra interdicta, preter baptisma paruulorum et penitencias

moriencium, sunt multi qui dicunt quod cui datur uiaticum laboranti, in extremis

1025 supra dicitur] JOHN OF KENT, Summa, 1.1001-1012 1036 indulgeat … 1037 sensibus] PET. CANT. Sum.de sacr. 3.281 1046 ut … Cantor] locum non inueni, cfr PET. CANT. Sum. de sacr. 1.38-51 1048 multi … dicunt] cfr PET. CANT. Sum. de sacr. 3.282-4

1025 dicitur] om. L O 1028 est] om. R 1029 sit] est L O 1033 circa] contra R 1037 uanitatem] uacuitatemR 1040 quidem] alicui L O 1041 nisi] nec R 1046 Cantor] eant L O | sequendam] consequendam L O

150

conceditur extrema unctio, sicut post baptismum possunt in interdicto pueri in

frontibus confirmari. 1050

1049 in1] L, om. O R

151

<II>

Capitula secundi libri

<1.> De matrimonio et que exiguntur ad matrimonium et utrum castratus contrahat.

<2.> De frigidis et maleficiatis et uouentibus et dispari cultu et errore condicionis et

persone. 5

<3.> De triplici cognacione et specialiter de spirituali et utrum quis possit ducere

comatres duas.

<4.> De consanguinitate et affinitate et extraordinaria pollucione.

<5.> De publice honestatis iusticia et qui sunt puberes uel im-/-puberes et quot modisfol. 213vb

sponsalia dirimuntur. 10

<6.> De coactione facta in matrimonio et de coniugio leprosorum.

<7.> De eo qui duxit in matrimonio quam polluit per adulterium et de eo qui cognouit

consanguineam uxoris sue.

<8.> De aliis matrimonii impedimentis et ecclesie iurisdictione.

<9.> Quod matrimonium inter absentes potest contrahi et de clandestinis coniugiis et 15

qualiter illegittimi legittimentur.

<10.> De condicionibus appositis in matrimonio uel sponsalibus.

<11.> De diuorciis et forma abiurandi et forma reconciliacionis.

<12.> De iuramentis et utrum iuramenta metu extorta sint obligatoria.

<13.> De falsis et illicitis iuramentis et iuramento fidelitatis. 20

<14.> De uoto et eius speciebus et triplici habitu.

<15.> De casibus circa uotum et quibus liceat habere proprium.

<16.> Que persone sine licentia aliorum uouere non possunt, et de reuocacione uotis

uel dispensacione.

<17.> Quid iuris cum alter coniugatorum conuertitur altero remanente in seculo. 25

<18.> De decimis et primiciis et de quibus rebus dande sunt decime.

<19.> De eodem et de decimis negociatorum.

<20.> De decimis religiosorum et utrum in feudum laicis dari possint.

1 Trad. Text. <II>: L O R

2 Capitula … 32 restitucionem] om. L O 14 iurisdictione] iurisdictio R 19 sint] sunt R

152

<21.> De usuris et turpi lucro et utrum in aliquo casu liceat usuras exigere.

<22.> De casibus qui contingunt circa usuram secundum theologos. 30

<23.> De modo restituendi, scilicet quis teneatur ad restitucionem, et de quibus rebus.

<24.> De militibus stipendiariis: utrum teneantur ad restitucionem.

153

<1.> De matrimonio et que exiguntur ad matrimonium et utrum castratus contrahat

Restat nunc ut accedamus ad ea que specialiter ad laicos pertinent. Prius ergo

uidendum est de matrimonio in quo intricati casus et difficiliores plures sunt. 35

Matrimonium igitur est legittima coniunctio uiri et mulieris indiuiduam uite

consuetudinem retinens.

Legittima dicit propter coniunctionem consanguinitatis que est naturalis; non legittima,

id est non secundum leges introducta; indiuiduam, supple aptitudine / et cessatfol. 214ra

obiectio de transitu ad religionem. Item indiuiduam dicit propter parentelae 40

coniunctionem que separatur. Unde dicimus propter hoc, id est matrimonium,

relinquet homo patrem et matrem et cetera.

Ad matrimonium exiguntur consensus animorum, consensus corporum, id est in

carnalem copulam, et personarum regularitas ad contrahendum. Unde Beata Virgo

consensit in carnalem copulam; condicionaliter enim uouit uirginitatem. Ubi ergo 45

deest aliquod istorum, non est matrimonium. Unde pueri ante septennium, quia non

senciunt nec consenciunt, ideo nec contrahunt, nec eciam sponsalia.

Infra septennium si cum aliqua contraxisti, propterea non impedieris quamlibet

consanguineam eius ducere, cum alias, si esset septennis et maior, nullam eius

consanguineam ducere possis, licet plus non esset actum quam quod per uerba de 50

futuro cum ea contraxisses; eadem racione qua puer et furiosus non contrahet, nisi in

tempore quietis si forte interpolatus sit furor.

Similiter impossibilitas coeundi impedit matrimonium. Unde uersus:

Vinculam coniugii casus bis quinque resoluunt,

Frigiditas, habitus, ordo, cognacio, uotum, 55

Condicio, cultus dispar, uis, error, honestas.

36 Matrimonium … 53 matrimonium] ROB. FLAM., Lib. poen., 2.1-2 (§11-3) 42 relinquet … cetera] Gn. 2:24;Mt. 19:5; Eph. 5:31

33 De] liber secundus praem. L | contrahat] capitulum primum add. L 36 igitur] ergo L O 38 Legittima]legittimam L O R 40 parentelae] parentelam L O R 41 est] enim L O 44 regularitas] irregularitas L, om. O46 quia] om. L O 47 nec1] neque L O 48 si] om. R 50 possis] posses L O

154

Unde castratus si contrahat, non erit matrimonium, et intelligendum est de eo cuius

abscisa est uirga, quia, si tantum abscisa sunt genitalia, deflorare potest uirginem et

seruire potest uxori sicut senex uel impotens generare. Talis ergo contrahit

matrimonium. Nam edictum de matrimonio prohibitorium est, id est ex quo non 60

prohibetur permittitur. Si post contractum matrimonium quis sectus fuerit, non

dirimitur matrimonium, quia generaliter nichil sequens dirimit matrimonium

contractum et consummatum.

<2.> De frigidis et maleficiatis et uouentibus et dispari cultu et errore condicionis et

persone 65

Eodem modo naturaliter frigidus non contrahit, cuius scilicet membra paralitica

dicuntur ut non possunt erigi. Talem si te dixeris et relicta tua uxore accesseris ad

aliam et cognoueris, probaberis non esse frigidus et cogeris redire ad primam; secus si

propter maleficium separatus es. Potest enim quis / maleficiari cum una et non cumfol. 214rb

altera, et hoc secundum Galensem et Tancredum. Set tu et uxor tua confitemini 70

frigiditatem tuam, commanebitis tamen per triennium. Si tamen impedimentum

quare commisceri non possitis ante triennium potest probari, non debet triennium

expectari. Post triennium iurabitis quod ita est et ita fiet diuorcium. Si super hoc

autem fiat contencio, credetur uiro si probare uoluerit, alioquin mulieri si

probabiliores raciones inducit. 75

Maleficium eciam perpetuum impedit et dirimit matrimonium, quod uidetur esse

matrimonium et non est; non perpetuum, nec hoc nec illud facit. Nunquam erecta

sunt tibi uirilia? Presumitur de frigiditate tua, alias maleficiatus es. Usque ad

triennium presumitur temporale fuisse maleficium; post triennium presumitur fuisse

perpetuum. Et in fauorem matrimonii semper presumitur fuisse post contractum 80

matrimonium, nisi probetur contrarium, et uix est aliquis ita maleficiatus quin

aliquando possit resolui. Eodem modo iudicandum est de stricta sicut de frigido et

60 edictum] X 4.1.23 (Comp. III, 4.1.3) 66 Eodem … 75 inducit] cfr ROB. FLAM., Lib. poen., 2.2 (§13)70 Galensem … Tancredum] cfr Gl. ord. ad X 4.15.5 v. diuinum miraculum (Comp. III, 4.11.1)76 Maleficium … 84 est] ROB. FLAM., Lib. poen., 2.2 (§14)

64 De … 65 persone] spatium vacuum habet O | maleficiatis] malefaciatis R | et5 … 65 persone] capitulum iiL 66 paralitica] paralitico R 69 es] est L O 72 commisceri] permisceri L O 77 illud] aliud L O

155

maleficiato que nec arte nec natura potest fieri habilis; nam si possit, matrimonium

est.

Impedit eciam matrimonium et uotum de quo dicendum est; uotum aliud simplex, 85

aliud sollempne. Simplex est quod nullo fulcitur amminiculo; sollempne quod tribus

modis sollempnizatur: ordine, ut subdiaconatu et supra; habitu, scilicet religionis;

professione, scilicet in presencia prelati. Sunt qui dicunt quod omne uotum de

presenti dirimit matrimonium. Illi autem ita distingunt: est uotum de presenti, est

uotum de futuro. De uoto de presenti intelligunt decreta in quibus dicitur quod 90

uotum dirimit matrimonium. Votum autem de futuro impedit set non dirimit. Alii

aliter distingunt dicentes quod est uotum simplex et est uotum sollempne. Simplex

impedit et non dirimit contractum, sollempne autem dirimit contractum, et hec opinio

celebrior est; de uoto plenius infra.

Dispar cultus impedit et dirimit matrimonium. Unde / Esdras separauit filios Israel afol. 214va 95

Babiloniis cum quibus contraxerant, quod non fecisset si ibi fuisset matrimonium.

Inter infideles autem est matrimonium set non ratum. Unde si conuersus es et uxor

tua non uult conuerti set tamen commanere, non potes ea sic manente aliam ducere. Si

autem in odium Christianitatis discedat uel si uult cohabitare, non tamen sine iniuria

nominis Christi, uel ut te pertrahat ad mortale, ducas aliam si uis, quia in hiis tribus 100

casibus potes. Ideo non est ratum matrimonium infidelium.

In solis Iudeis aliter est secundum quosdam. Quia si mulier conuertatur et uir infidelis

remaneat, potest mulier nubere cui uult, eciam si uir uelit in pace remanere. Quia uiri,

cum habeant legem scriptam, facile possunt seducere mulieres. Si autem uir

conuertatur et non mulier, uir potest retinere mulierem si uoluerit, quia non potest ita 105

facile seducere mulier uirum sicut econuerso. Secundum alios idem est iudicium de

Iudeis et Gentilibus. Si autem fideles contraxerunt et alter apostatat et non uult

85 Impedit … 88 prelati] ROB. FLAM., Lib. poen., 2.3 (§17, 23) 88 Sunt … 94 est] Gl. ord. ad C.27 q.1 d.p. c.1v. quod uouentes 90 decreta] cfr C.27 q.1 c.1; C17 q.1 d.p. c.4 94 plenius infra] JOHN OF KENT, Summa,2.546-671 95 Dispar … 101 infidelium] ROB. FLAM., Lib. poen., 2.3 (§35-6) | Esdras … 96 Babiloniis] 1Esd. 10:11 102 secundum quosdam] ROB. FLAM., Lib. poen., 2.3 (§36) 106 Secundum alios] cfr ROB.FLAM., Lib. poen., 2.3 (§36); Gl. ord. ad C.28 q.1 c.10 v. iudai

105 ita] ibi R

156

manere, nisi blasphemans uel forte discesserit, non potest remanens fidelis cum alia

contrahere uiuente prima, quia ratum fuit matrimonium eorum.

Paganus autem qui plures uxores simul habuit conuersus non nisi unam, scilicet 110

primam, habebit. Item qui secundum ritum infidelium legittimam repudiauit uxorem

conuersus non potest aliam accipere, nisi in tribus casibus, scilicet si renuat cohabitare

et aliis duobus predictis casibus, scilicet si uult cohabitare, set non sine blasphemia

nominis Christi, uel ut cohabitans pertrahat ad mortale. Et si illa conuertatur,

antequam ille propter predictas causas aliam ducat, eam recipere compelletur. Nec 115

poterit obicere fornicacionem dimisse, pro eo quod nupserit alii post repudium, nisi

aliter fuerit fornicata.

Error persone impedit matrimonium, ut uoluisti contrahere cum Berta et subposita est

tibi Teberga, non est matrimonium, nisi postea consenseris in Tebergam. Item error

condicionis impedit matrimonium et dirimit, / ut si uoluisti contrahere cum libera etfol. 214vb 120

comperta est esse ancilla, non est matrimonium, nisi postea quam sciuisti accessisti ad

eam uel nisi tu seruus fueris. Tunc enim nichil est quod ei possis obicere. Item nota

quod error melioris condicionis non impedit matrimonium, ut si intendisti contrahere

cum ancilla et comperta est esse libera. Alius error non nocet, scilicet fortune et

qualitatis. 125

<3.> De triplici cognacione et specialiter de spirituali, et utrum quis possit ducere

commatres duas

Cognacio eciam dirimit matrimonium que multiplex est, scilicet carnalis, spiritualis,

legalis. Legalis fit per adopcionem uel arrogacionem. Adopcio est extranee persone in

filium uel nepotem uel deinceps usque ad quartum gradum assumpcio. Adoptatur 130

qui sub alicuius potestate est; arrogatur qui sui iuris est. Unde uersus:

110 Paganus … 117 fornicata] cfr X 4.19.8 (Comp. III, 4.14.2) 118 Error … 125 qualitatis] ROB. FLAM., Lib.poen., 2.3 (§37)

108 manere] remanerere L, remanere O | uel] et L O 114 ut] om. R 115 compelletur] compellitur L O116 dimisse] diruisse L O 120 uoluisti] uoluerit L O 127 duas] suas R, capitulum tercium add. L131 alicuius] alterius R

157

Arrogo qui suus est et habet meus esse necesse.

Patris adopto natum nec patris desinit esse.

Et potest in tali proximitate distingui linea descendens et transuersalis. In descendente

est perpetua nuptiarum prohibicio. In transuersali impeditur matrimonium quamdiu 135

durat adopcio, qua cessante uel soluta licite potest contrahi. Sub cognacione legali

comprehenditur legalis affinitas, ut inter me et uxorem filii mei adoptiui; similiter

inter filium meum adoptiuum et uxorem meam, et ista impedit matrimonium et

dissoluit.

Spiritualis cognacio contrahitur per penitenciam uel baptismum, et illa que per 140

baptismum impedit et dirimit et hoc quatuor modis: inter baptizantem uel

suscipientem et susceptum; inter suscipientem et uxorem eius et patrem et matrem

suscepti; inter filios suscipientis, non dico baptizantis, et susceptum.

Septem sacramentalia sunt in baptismo: salis imposicio, aurium et narium sputo

linicio, crucis in pectore signacio, exsufflacio uel olei sacri perunctio, baptismi ablucio, 145

crismatis in uertice perunctio, in fronte sacra crismacio. Ista omnia et singula

secundum Huguccionem creant spiritualem cognacionem et impediunt /fol. 215ra

matrimonium. Alii dicunt quod per tria sacramenta dumtaxat contrahitur

compaternitas, scilicet cathecismum, baptismum, confirmacionem. Tamen illa que per

cathecismum contrahitur inualida est ad seperandum matrimonium. Alie uero due 150

impediunt et dirimunt matrimonium, et hec nostra opinio.

Dicunt quidam quod filiolam meam potest filius meus ante compaternitatem genitus

habere uxorem set errant. Set quilibet filius meus, siue ante compaternitatem genitus

siue post compaternitatem, potest quamlibet filiam compatris mei ducere in uxorem

144 Septem … 148 matrimonium] ROB. FLAM., Lib. poen., 2.3 (§43) 147 secundum Huguccionem] HUG.,Sum. ad C.30 q.1 c.1 v. septem dona baptismi 148 Alii … 151 matrimonium] Gl. ord. ad X 4.11.5 v. vixcontrahendo (Comp. II, 4.6.2); Gl. ord. ad C.30 q.1 c.1 v. pabulo 152 Dicunt … 162 racione] ROB. FLAM.,Lib. poen., 2.3 (§44-8)

132 meus] mens L O, meus add. Lin marg. 133 natum] suum L O 141 uel … 142 suscipientem2] etsuscipientem L O 143 filios] dico add. L O 146 sacra] facta R 149 scilicet] om. L O 150 uero] om. L O151 nostra] uestra L, ueca O 153 ante … genitus] genitus meus L O 154 compaternitatem] om. R

158

excepta illa mediante qua contrahitur compaternitas. Idem dicitur de illa per omnia 155

quam tenuisti ad confirmacionem.

Item uiro non adquiritur compaternitas per eius uxorem, nisi post carnis copulam

sicut nec affinitas. Monachis interdicitur compaternitas suscipiendo, non baptizando,

quia ibi maior solet esse familiaritas quam hic in osculo et huiusmodi.

Sacerdotis filius non est frater spiritualis illius quam sacerdos admittit ad 160

penitenciam, et ideo potest cum ea contrahere, cum edictum de matrimonio

prohibitorium sit. Sic et cum ea quam pater suus baptizauit eadem racione.

Queritur utrum aliquis possit diuersis temporibus ducere duas commatres, et potest

in duobus casibus, in duobus non. Verbi gracia: Berta suscipit filium Helene, post hec

Paris ducit Bertam, qua mortua potest ducere Helenam. Item Paris et Helena sunt uir 165

et uxor. Berta suscipit filium Helene de alio uiro, mortua Helena potest Paris cum

Berta contrahere. Item Paris et Helena sunt uir et uxor. Helena suscipit filium Berte.

Nunquam potest Paris ducere Bertam. Decreta ergo que prohibent ducere duas

commatres intelliguntur in duobus secundis casibus, que autem conceduntur in

duobus primis. Unde uersus: 170

Me fuge que nostrum, cuiusue leuat mea natum,

Tu michi te iunge, cuius mea suscipit ante,

Quam mea sit natum, uel suscipitur suus a te.

<4.> De consanguinitate et affinitate et extraordinaria pollucione

Sequitur de cognacione carnali que est consanguinitas, / set iam de hac materiafol. 215rb 175

plenius est uidendum. Notandum igitur quod consanguinitas est personarum

uinculum ab eodem stipite descendentium propagacione contractum. Stipitem dico

personam a qua aliqui descendunt. Linea est ordinata collectio personarum

161 edictum] X 4.1.23 (Comp. III, 4.1.3) 163 Queritur … 170 primis] cfr ROB. FLAM., Lib. poen., 2.3 (§45)168 Decreta] C.30 q.4 c.1-6 176 Notandum … 202 potest] BERN. PAP., Sum. decr., IV.14.1-8

155 compaternitas] om. R | de illa] post omnia O, om. L 162 prohibitorium] prohibitum R 166 Berta … 167uxor] om. L O 168 que] om. R 169 conceduntur] concedunt L O 171 nostrum] uestrum L O174 extraordinaria] extraordinara R | pollucione] capitulum iiii add. L

159

consanguinitate iunctarum diuersos gradus continens, et eos ab unitate stipitis

secundum numeros distinguens. Sunt autem tres: una ascendencium, ut pater et 180

mater, auus et auia; alia descendencium, ut filius, filia, nepos, neptis; alia de latere

ueniencium, ut frater et soror et eorum generacio, que dicitur linea transuersalis large;

omissa ergo computacione legali, de qua nichil ad nos in presenti.

Sciendum est quod gradus canonicus est competens habitudo personarum

consanguinearum, qua dinoscitur quo cognacionis processu a se distent. In ascensu, 185

primus gradus sunt pater et mater; secundus, auus et auia; tercius, proauus et

proauia; quartus, abauus et abauia. In linea descendenti, primus gradus est filius et

filia; secundus, nepos et neptis; tercius, pronepos et proneptis; quartus, abnepos et

abneptis.

In transuersali uaria est computacio: earum enim alia est obliqua, alia directa. Directa, 190

que ponit personas ab eodem stipite pariter descendentes; obliqua, que ponit personas

que distent gradu, id est que ab eodem stipite impariter descendunt. Puta, ego et

frater meus pariter descendimus, ego et filius fratris mei impariter, et ita de aliis. Si

igitur de aliquibus personis dubitetur quoto gradu a se distant, recurre ad omnem

stipitem, id est ad personam de qua utrumque procedit, et si equaliter distent ab illo, 195

toto gradu distabunt a se quoto remocior distat a stipite. Si inequaliter distent ab illo,

toto gradu distabunt a se quoto remocior distat a stipite.

Cognacio igitur carnalis dirimit matrimonium, scilicet in linea ascendente et

descendente, que eadem est in infinitum. Quia si hodie uiueret Adam, cum nulla

posset contrahere. In linea transuersali eciam in gradu quarto dirimitur matrimonium. 200

Nam secundum constitucionem nouam ultra quartum gradum non extenditur.

Dispensari tamen potest set a solo papa et tantum in personis / que non prohibenturfol. 215va

in lege. Persone autem tredecim ad plus prohibite sunt in Leuitico: mater, nouerca,

soror, neptis, amita, matertera, uxor patrui, nurus, uxor fratris, scilicet nisi ut

201 constitucionem nouam] Conc. Lat. IV, c. 50 203 Leuitico] Lv. 18:6-20

182 generacio] genero R 184 est1] om. R 187 et1] om. R | est] om. R | et2] om R 188 et1] O, om. L Ret2] om. R | et3] om. R 190 enim] eciam L O | est2] om. R 192 distent] distant L O R 196 remocior]alteruter eorum (illorum O) L O | Si … 197 stipite] om. R | distent] distant O, om. R 198 et … 199 que] in LO 201 constitucionem] consuetudinem R 203 tredecim] xiiii R

160

suscitetur semen fratris premortui sine liberis, priuigna, filia priuigni uel priuigne, 205

soror uxoris. Dominus papa concedit Liuoniensibus nuper conuersis ut utantur

matrimoniis precontractis cum relictis fratrum suorum.

Affinitas eciam impedit et dirimit matrimonium. Est autem affinitas irregularitas

personarum proueniens ex coitu omni carens parentela. Ex coitu dico, quia eque per

coitum fornicatorum uel legittimum contrahitur affinitas secundum plures. Secundum 210

alios non est ibi, nisi publice honestatis iusticia.

Extraordinaria autem pollucio qualitercumque facta, si non est facta infra uas aptum

nature, non inducit affinitatem, nec impedit matrimonium, dummodo uterque

pollutorum iuret pollucionem illam naturaliter non esse factam.

Affinitas igitur hoc modo dinoscitur. Omnes consanguinee uxoris mee sunt michi 215

affines, et habet quatuor gradus sicut consanguinitas quoad matrimonium

contrahendum et dirimendum et dispensandum, quos hoc modo dinosces: in quo

gradu consanguinitatis est aliqua uxori mee, in toto gradu affinitatis michi est.

Secundum genus et tercium et prohibicio de prole suscepta ex secundis nupciis non

copulanda consanguineis prioris uiri reuocata sunt per nouum concilium, et ideo 220

facilis est hodie computacio tam affinitatis quam consanguinitatis.

<5.> De publice honestatis iusticia et quid sint puberes uel impuberes et quot modis

sponsalia dirimuntur

Iusticia eciam publice honestatis dirimit matrimonium, ut per uerba de futuro

contraxisti sponsalia cum septenni uel maiori, licet ulterius non est processum, nullam 225

consanguineam eius habere poteris. A septennio enim et supra recte contrahuntur

sponsalia; matrimonium autem quando puberes sunt, ut infra dicetur. Et

206 papa … Liuoniensibus] X 4.19.9 (Comp. III, 4.14.3) 208 Affinitas … 211 iusticia] cfr BERN. PAP., Sum.decr., IV.14.11 210 secundum plures] BERN. PAP., Sum. decr., IV.14.11 | Secundum … 211 alios] Gl. ord.ad X 4.13.6 v. nec affinitas (Comp. III, 4.9.1) 212 Extraordinaria … 214 factam] BERN. PAP., Sum. decr.,IV.14.17 215 Affinitas … 221 consanguinitatis] cfr BERN. PAP., Sum. decr., IV.14.12-15 220 nouumconcilium] Conc. Lat. IV, c. 50 224 Iusticia … 230 possunt] ROB. FLAM., Lib. poen., 2.3 (§51)

210 fornicatorum] fornicarium L O | uel] ut L O R | secundum] contra L, econtra O 212 si … facta2] om. LO 222 sint … uel] sunt puberes et L 227 quando] ante L O

161

attendendum quod impubes dicitur mas usque ad annum quartum decimum

expletum, / puella usque ad annum duodecimum, tamen hec tempora preueniunturfol. 215vb

per maturitatem in utroque, scilicet si coire iam possunt. 230

Et notandum quod quandoque duo impuberes contrahunt, quandoque duo puberes,

quandoque pubes cum impubere; item aut matrimonium aut sponsalia. Si impuberes

contrahunt sponsalia, neuter poterit resilire donec peruenerint ad pubertatem. Tunc

compellendi sunt ut contrahant propter bonum maius sequens, scilicet reformacionem

pacis et huiusmodi. Si autem resilire uoluerint, omnibus modis non sunt compellendi, 235

nisi condicionaliter, ut de nolente fiat uolens cum huiusmodi coactionem soleat peior

exitus sequi. Iuramentum autem interpositum obligat usque ad illam etatem, et hoc

dico si rite contracta sunt sponsalia. Nam si non rite, id est si infra septennium,

possunt recedere quandocumque uoluerint.

Videtur tamen per simile contractus matrimonii quod si septennis cum quinquenni 240

sponsalia contrahat debeant se expectare, set hoc non tenet. Impuberes, si contrahant

matrimonium, non sunt obligati matrimonio, quia nichil faciunt, quo tamen casu si

non faciunt quod intendunt, faciunt quod facere possunt, scilicet contrahunt

sponsalia.

Secundum plures si duo puberes contrahunt legittime, siue sponsalia siue 245

matrimonium, de cetero recedere non possunt ab inuicem, nisi in casibus infra positis.

Si pubes cum impubere sponsalia contrahat, pubes est obligatus, nam quantum in se

erat obligauit. Impubes uero recedere potest cum ad etatem legittimam peruenerit,

non ante set tunc, nisi carnalis copula sit secuta; et intellige de impuberibus qui

septem annos compleuerunt. Si matrimonium contrahant de facto, obligatus est 250

pubes; impubes uero recedere potest, scilicet cum uenerit ad etatem, et ita idem est

iudicium ac si contraxissent sponsalia.

231 Et … 252 sponsalia] cfr ROB. FLAM., Lib. poen., 2.3 (§51-4) 245 Secundum plures] cfr ROB. FLAM., Lib.poen., 2.3 (§53)

229 preueniuntur] preuenerunt L, preuenunt O 232 impubere] impube L O 236 fiat uolens] L, fiant uolentesO R 245 duo] dico L O

162

Dirimuntur sponsalia octo casibus uel forte pluribus, scilicet propter mutuam ad

inuicem remissionem. Item propter alterius absenciam potest fieri cum alio

contractus, eciam si fuerit ante desponsacionem cognita / et non post, quia si post,fol. 216ra 255

consummatum est matrimonium; item propter lepram superuenientem; item propter

affinitatem superuenientem, ut si sponsus matrem sponse cognoscat; item si quis

disponsauit uirginem, et postea deflorata sit ab alio, non debet cogi eam ducere; item

quando impubes annos pubertatis attingens non consentit ad matrimonium

contrahendum. Item credo si alter in heresim labitur. Fauore eciam religionis 260

dirimuntur sponsalia siue matrimonia, quia si ante carnalem copulam intrauerit quis

religionem, reclamante eciam uxore non exibit; remanens autem tamen potest nubere.

<6.> De coactione facta in matrimonio et de coniugio leprosorum

Coactio impedit matrimonium contrahendum et dirimit contractum, quia in uoto et

matrimonio non solum uoluntas set libertas exigitur uoluntatis. Set quantumcumque 265

aliqua coacta fuerit, si postea cum uiro moram fecerit, et cum potuit non recessit,

uidetur consensisse; quia effuge cum poteris, ne consensisse puteris, ita quod ulterius

non debet audiri allegans metum uel coactionem. In aliis autem contractibus aliter est,

quia si coactus iuras aliquid quod non est peccatum, illud debes facere secundum

quosdam; de hoc tamen plenius infra. 270

Leprosus eciam licite ex licencia Apostoli contrahit nisi sit religiosus et quia integritas

non precipitur, set credo <matrimonium> dissuadendum propter fetus leprosos, set

non cogendum. Tamen non credo quod benedictiones sint dande, set sufficit si constet

de consensu. Eadem racio filii eorum, si sint leprosi, non sunt communi fonte lauandi

ne fontes inficiantur. Notandum quod uir uxorem leprosam sequi tenetur, set hoc ubi 275

ex necessaria causa uxor recedit. Nam si secus, uir uxorem maritali potestate domi

retineat si uoluerit; uice uersa uxor tenetur sequi uirum. Si honeste se habet, ex

253 Dirimuntur … 262 nubere] ROB. FLAM., Lib. poen., 2.3 (§55-8) 264 Coactio … 270 infra] cfr ROB.FLAM., Lib. poen., 2.23 (§62) 269 secundum … 270 quosdam] ROB. FLAM., Lib. poen., 2.3 (§62) 270 infra]JOHN OF KENT, Summa, 2.446-98

253 mutuam] nimiam L O 255 desponsacionem] dispensacionem R 256 item2 … 257 superuenientem] om. LO 257 ut] uel L O 259 attingens] contingens L O 267 ne] nec R 269 peccatum] emendaui cum ROB.FLAM., contradictum L O R

163

quacumque causa recedat, nisi ipsam ad maleficium, scilicet quodcumque mortale

trahere uoluerit.

<7.> De eo qui / duxit in matrimonio quam polluit per adulterium et de eo quifol. 216rb 280

cognouit consanguineam uxoris sue

Dirimitur autem matrimonium contractum, si ducat quis in matrimonium quam

polluit per adulterium in tribus casibus, scilicet si adulter machinatus est, cum effectu

dico, in mortem prioris uiri, hac intencione scilicet ut eam duceret; uel si eo uiuente

fidem sibi de contrahendo dederit; uel si eciam de facto contraxerint ut eam, scilicet 285

publice uiuente priore, tenuerit ut uxorem; et hec prohibicio perpetua est.

Quicumque autem cognouerit post matrimonium contractum consanguineam uxoris

quocumque gradu, siue occultum sit siue manifestum, non ideo separandus est, set

debet reddere debitum etsi non exigere. Non enim hic debet mulier priuari suo iure

sine culpa sua. Si autem uir cognouerit consanguineam uxoris tercio et ulteriore 290

gradu, acta penitencia potest exigere et reddere. Si quis cognouit consanguineam eius

cum qua postea contraxit, et postea confiteatur publice, non credetur ei contra

matrimonium, immo precipiet ei ecclesia publice quod reddat debitum uxori putatiue.

Ille tamen prius se excommunicari permittat quam a consciencia recedat, cum sciat

inter eos matrimonium non esse. Si ergo inuenias preceptum quod reddat et non 295

exigat, dicas hoc factum tanquam a iudice sedente in tribunali; in iudicio uero anime

aliter esset respondendum, scilicet consulendum ne reddat contra conscienciam.

<8.> De aliis impedimentis matrimonii et ecclesie interdicto

Delicti enormitas impedit matrimonium, id est facit delinquentem inhabilem ad

contrahendum, ut in uxoricida, quia in quo deliquit quis puniendus est; idem in raptu. 300

Illam autem quam rapuit potest ducere, set post illam aliam impeditur ducere. Item

282 Dirimitur … 286 est] cfr ROB. FLAM., Lib. poen., 2.3 (§61, 67); Gl. ord. ad C.31 q.1 d.p. c.1 v. adulterio287 Quicumque … 297 conscienciam] cfr ROB. FLAM., Lib. poen., 2.3 (§65) 295 preceptum] cfr X 4.13.1, 4(Comp. I, 4.13.1; Comp. II, 4.7.3) 299 Delicti … 304 continencie] ROB. FLAM., Lib. poen., 2.3 (§59)

278 recedat] recedit L O 280 quam] prius add. L | de eo] deo L 281 sue] capitulum vii add. L 283 adulter]O, adiater L, alteruter R 285 dederit] dederint R | scilicet] om. L O 294 consciencia] sua L, sciencia O

164

qui cognouit consanguineam uxoris sue primo uel secundo uel tercio gradu, post

illam sine spe coniugii maneat. Ista tamen impediunt si non dirimunt, immo cum

talibus dispensatur quandoque / si iuuenes sint propter timorem continencie.fol. 216va

Sunt et alia que impediunt matrimonii effectum, id est carnis copulam, ut tempus 305

sacrum, ut ieiunia, festa sanctorum, tempus puerperii, tempus menstrui, quo tempore

mortale est exigere, nisi iusta causa, ut est impotencia continendi. Mortale est eciam

reddere, nisi periculum fornicacionis emineat in coniuge uel aliud scandalum.

Auctoritates autem Apostoli que huic uidentur contrarie de perpetua fraudacione

debiti intelligende sunt uel ad casum ubi timetur fornicacio referende. Impedit eciam 310

carnis copulam locus sacer. Non enim ubique eciam reddendum est debitum. Impedit

eciam causa, quia si causa libidinis explende exigit, peccat mortaliter. Non autem ita si

causa incontinencie uitande sue uel uxoris uel si exactus reddat. Si autem causa prolis

procreande, meretur.

Impediunt eciam matrimonium tempora feriarum, quia ab Aduentu usque post 315

octauum Epiphanie, et a Septuagesima usque post octauum Pasche, et tribus

septimanis ante festum sancti Iohannis Baptiste, non debet contrahi matrimonium;

tamen si contrahatur, et non sit aliud impedimentum, contractum est. Ille tres

septimane ante festum sancti Iohannis intelligende sunt a prima die Rogacionum

usque ad octauum Pentecostes. 320

Interdictum eciam ecclesie, id est quando ecclesia interdicit aliquibus ne contrahant,

impedit matrimonium contrahendum; tamen super hoc notandum quod

matrimonium contrahendum quandoque interdicitur a iure, quandoque a iudice.

Cum a iure contrahi non debet, contractum tamen tenet, nisi adiciatur in ipso iure

quod contractum tenere non debeat. Tunc enim contractum ipso iure non tenet. Cum 325

uero a iudice interdicitur, contrahi non debet, contractum tamen semper tenet si aliud

non impediat quam prohibicio, nisi speciale dicamus de prohibicione summi

305 Sunt … 314 meretur] cfr ROB. FLAM., Lib. poen., 2.3 (§71) 309 Auctoritates … Apostoli] 1 Cor. 7:3315 Impediunt … 320 Pentecostes] cfr ROB. FLAM., Lib. poen., 2.4 (§72)

303 si … dirimunt] om. R 305 carnis] carnalem L O 308 emineat … 309 contrarie] om. R 311 eciam]inexactum add. O, exactum add. R 312 quia] quam L O | si2] set R 315 tempora] tempus L O316 octauum1] octobas L O | octauum2] octobas L O 320 octauum] octobas L O 325 tenere] teneri L O

165

pontificis qui est ipsa lex et uiua uox canonum.

Verumptamen ut sciatur an ecclesia debeat contractum matrimonium approbare uel

non, sic distinguitur: aut prohibet ecclesia adiecta causa aut sine cause adiectione. Si 330

sine, matrimonium est post tale interdictum et approbare tenetur ecclesia incontinenti.

Si causa adiecta, / aut habet perpetuam prohibicionem aut non. Si non, tunc ut priusfol. 216vb

debet ecclesia iam contractum approbare, tamen puniendi sunt contrahentes pro

contemptu. Si perpetuam, puta pro consanguinitate, reprobare debet quousque

constet an stare debeat an non. 335

<9.> Quod matrimonium inter absentes potest contrahi et de clandestinis coniugiis et

qualiter illegittimi legittimentur

Sponsalia et matrimonium inter absentes contrahi possunt per signa et nuncium. Set

ecce, antequam nuncius ueniat ad illam, iste reuocat consensum, illa tamen consentit

nuncio: non est matrimonium. Alioquin est matrimonium, eciam si iste dormit 340

quando illa consentit, quia consensus intelligitur inherere et durare adhuc qui facit

matrimonium.

Cum sollempnitate debent fieri matrimonia. Filii enim clandestini sunt illegittimi; nec

excusantur per ignoranciam parentum in hoc casu si clandestine contraxerint.

Sacerdos eciam quicumque, siue regularis siue secularis, qui talibus nunciis 345

presumpserit interesse per triennium ab officio suspendatur, et taliter contrahentibus

eciam in gradu concesso condigna penitencia iniungatur. Clandestina autem sunt

matrimonia que aliter fiunt quam determinatum sit in nouo concilio.

Oportet enim ut, cum matrimonia fuerint celebranda in ecclesiis, per presbiteros

publice proponatur competenti termino prefinito, ut infra illum, qui uoluerit 350

legittimum impedimentum opponat, et ipsi presbiteri nichilominus inuestigent utrum

aliquod impedimentum obsistat. Siquidem ubi ecclesia presumit esse matrimonium,

338 Sponsalia … 342 matrimonium] ROB. FLAM., Lib. poen., 2.3 (§68) 343 Cum … 348 concilio] cfr ROB.FLAM., Lib. poen., 2.3 (§69) 348 nouo concilio] Conc. Lat. IV, c. 51

328 uox canonum] lex canonis L O 333 debet] habet L O 336 potest] om. L 340 iste] ille L O 348 sit] estL O 350 termino] racio R | infra] ita R

166

ibi sunt filii legittimi. Item per matrimonium sequens legittimantur filii in fornicacione

geniti. Filii autem in adulterio geniti per matrimonium sequens non possunt

legittimari. Prona tamen est ecclesia ut iudicet legittimos filios sicut et liberos. 355

Legittimantur siquidem filii illegittimi secundum canones tribus modis. Primus est

per subsequens matrimonium, ut diximus; secundus, si unus uel ambo coniugum /fol. 217ra

ignorent matrimonii impedimentum, nam si ambo sciuerint impedimentum, non sunt

legittimi filii; tercius est per dispensacionem. Sunt et alii quatuor modi secundum

leges, de quibus nichil ad presens, et hoc quod diximus de legittimacione 360

intelligendum est quoad omnia, scilicet quoad ordines et hereditatem.

Clandestine contraxisti cum aliqua, post publice cum alia. Prius te permittas

excommunicari ab ecclesia quam adultereris cum secunda. Et generaliter, si scis

impedimentum propter quod sine mortali non potes coire, prius te permittas

excommunicari quam mortaliter pecces. Si credis tantum aut ex leui et temeraria 365

credulitate et tunc ad tui pastoris consilium, ea repulsa et reddere potes et exigere; si

ex probabili et discreta, licet non euidenti, et tunc reddes et non exiges.

<10.> De condicionibus appositis in matrimonio et in sponsalibus

Explicitis impedimentis matrimonii sequitur de condicionibus appositis in

matrimonio. Hec igitur uerba contraho, contraham pertinent ad matrimonium; desponso, 370

desponsabo ad sponsalia; idem iudicium de hiis uerbis do, dabo, promitto, promittam.

Quando uerbum presentis temporis quod pertinet ad matrimonium sequitur condicio,

tenetur pro sponsalibus et statim sunt sponsalia siue obligacio similis sponsalibus. Ut

si dicatur, contraho tecum, si dedis michi centum, et hiis uerbis contrahuntur sponsalia, et

obligatur ad contrahendum existente condicione, alias non, nisi postea consenserint 375

356 canones] X 4.17.1 (Comp. I, 4.18.1); X 4.17.14 (Comp. III, 4.12.3); X 4.17.13 (Comp. III, 4.12.2)Primus … 357 matrimonium] X 4.17.1,6 (Comp. I, 4.18.1,6) 357 secundus … 358 impedimentum1] X 4.17.14(Comp. III, 4.12.3) 359 tercius … dispensacionem] X 4.17.13 (Comp. III, 4.12.2) | secundum … 360 leges]Inst. 1.10; Nov. 89.2-3, 117.2; cfr BERN. PAP., Sum. decr., IV.18 362 Clandestine … 367 exiges] cfr ROB.FLAM., Lib. poen., 2.3 (§70) 363 Et … 367 exiges] X 5.39.44 (Comp. III, 5.21.17)

354 possunt] dicunt L, debent O 358 sciuerint] sciunt L O 363 Et] quia L O 364 prius] pocius L O366 et1] om. L O | si] aut R 368 et … sponsalibus] uel sponsalibus capitulum x L 373 et … sponsalibus2] om.L O 374 dedis] dederis L O | et1] om. L O 375 existente] de presenti exstante R

167

de presenti uel sese cognouerint. Si uero sit per uerbum de futuro pertinens ad

matrimonium et sequitur condicio, tenetur pro obligacione ad sponsalia, non pro

sponsalibus, set existente condicione; item quando uerbum presentis temporis

pertinens ad sponsalia <et> sequitur condicio, idem est iudicium quod est in proximo

canone dictum. Si autem sit de futuro et sequitur condicio, tenetur pro obligacione 380

quadam qua quis tenetur ad obligacionem sponsalium.

Refert igitur utrum condicio honesta uel inhonesta sit; item utrum intersit consensus

per uerba de futuro uel per uerba de presenti. Si fuerit condicio inhonesta et

consensus de presenti, nulla est condicio ipso iure, et tenet contractus, ut contraho

tecum, si repleueris domum meam furto, excepto unico casu quando / contra substanciamfol. 217rb 385

matrimonii apponitur condicio, ut contraho tecum, si uenena sterilitatis procuraueris uel

ut tecum maneam tantum per biennium, tunc nichil agitur. Si fuerit honesta et contractus

per uerba de presenti pertinencia ad matrimonium, suspendit effectum matrimonii

donec exstet condicio. Item si condicio sit inhonesta et contractus per uerba de futuro,

debet frangi condicio et sponsalia remanebunt; et idem est ac si non esset apposita. Si 390

autem honesta est, ut contraham tecum si Romam ieris, et propter illam causam exstet

condicio, cogendus est ad contrahendum, alias non. Nam si alia causa uel fortuitu eat

uel non exstiterit condicio, non cogetur.

Dicit Augustinus: Est fides pactionis quando aliquis promittit alicui fidem quod eam ducet, si

permiserit ei rem secum habere. Set contra, si contrahantur sponsalia sub condicione, 395

nunquam erunt nisi exstante condicione, set non exstat condicio, ergo non

contrahuntur sponsalia quod est contra Augustinum. Respondeo, potest distingui

inter ista duo: ducam te, si permiseris me rem tecum habere; ducam te, si habuero rem tecum.

Primo modo contrahuntur sponsalia, quia quasi honesta uidetur condicio. Est enim

sensus, ducam te, si in presenti permiseris quod post matrimonium rem tecum habeam, quod 400

quidem satis est licitum. Puta, si post hec sponsalia siue obligacionem sponsalium

cognoscat eam, et tunc cognoscet matrimonialiter. Si autem dicat ducam te, si habuero

394 Dicit … 395 habere] C.27 q.2 d.p. c.51; X 4.4.1 (Comp. I, 4.4.1)

377 ad … 380 obligacione] om. R 378 set] erunt add. L O | existente] extante L | temporis] om. L 379 est2]om. O 380 dictum] dicto O, om. R 393 exstiterit] existit L, extiterit O 397 quod] om. L, et O 402 et … cognoscet] om. L O

168

rem tecum, oportet precedere coitum sponsalia et ita est inhonesta condicio et ita pro

non adiecta habetur. Unde statim contrahuntur sponsalia et si post cognoscat, coitus

est consummatus matrimonii. 405

Alii dicunt quod hec non est condicio set declaracio rei ad quam mulier tenetur.

Secundum quosdam, si apponatur impossibilis condicio, nichil agitur, ut si dicatur

contraho tecum si celum digito tetigeris. Si autem condicio necessaria, tenet contractus, ut

contraho tecum si Deus est. Ita enim est in aliis contractibus. Secus autem est in

testamentis, legatis, et libertatibus, quia ibi propter fauorem impossibilis condicio non 410

/ pro adiecta habetur. Ideo dicunt alii quod idem est iudicium in matrimonio propterfol. 217va

fauorem matrimonii, ut scilicet impossibilis condicio frangatur, et non frangat

matrimonium, siue sit impossibilis de iure ut contraho tecum si patrem tuum interfeceris,

et hoc de omni impossibili, nisi sit contra naturam matrimonii, ut dictum est.

Qua racione dicitur quod si quis disponsauit aliquam quam si postea cognoscat, 415

consummatum est matrimonium, licet cognoscens non sic intendat. Ea racione dicitur

quod si quis desponsauerit aliquam, iuret quod non cognoscet istam nisi maritali

affectu. Si postea cognoscat eam, consummatum est matrimonium, licet contrarium

cognoscens intendat. Idem enim est dicere, iuro quod non cognoscam eam, nisi

matrimonialiter; iuro quod si cognoscam eam, cognoscam maritali affectu. Secus est si iuret 420

quod non cognoscet eam, nisi desponset eam. Nomine enim sponsalium intelliguntur

sollempnitates ille que fiunt in ecclesia, unde si cognoscat eam, eo ipso non est

maritus eius cum non precesserint sollempnitates ille, set reus est periurii.

<11.> De diuorciis et forma abiurandi et forma reconciliacionis

Conuicisti uxorem de fornicacione. Potes eam iudicio ecclesie relinquere et ea inuita 425

religionem intrare, set neuter uestrum reliquo uiuente potest nubere. Hoc dico si

immunis es a fornicacione et occasionem non dederis ei fornicandi, nec post

fornicacionem eam cognoueris. Si aliquod istorum fuerit, non potes eam relinquere.

406 Alii … 414 est] cfr Gl. ord ad. C.32 q.2 c. 6 v. nolint; Gl. ord. ad X 4.5.6 (Comp. III, 4.4.1) v.praesumendum 425 Conuicisti … 428 relinquere] ROB. FLAM., Lib. poen., 2.3 (§64)

404 adiecta] tenetur et add. L O | coitus] ille add. Ls.l. O 412 frangat] frange R 417 desponsauerit aliquam]O, om. R, desponsauit aliquam L | istam] illam L O 418 contrarium] contrario L O R

169

Item quod dicitur de fornicacione corporali intelligitur de spirituali, scilicet in omni

crimine ad quod te nititur uxor tua pertrahere, potes eam iudicio ecclesie relinquere; 430

eodem modo si mulier machinata est in mortem uiri; idem de uicio sodomitico. Si

autem in tali casu uelit uxor tenere maritum reum uel econuerso, cohabitare

permittuntur si sit spes de correctione, alioquin preceptum est dimittere / cum sibi ipsifol. 217vb

de corrupcione timeat. Quod si pro adulterio uxoris celebratum sit diuorcium,

possunt si utrique placuerit sibi inuicem reconciliari. Inuito enim alterutro non potest 435

fieri reconciliacio, quia cum uterque per iudicis sentenciam a iure mutue seruitutis sit

absolutus, neuter per se potest hoc a iudice repetere cum effectu, mulier propter

debitum, uir propter iuris sui cessionem.

Hec est forma abiurandi: Ab isto die in antea, tu per nullum ingenium te sociabis huic

mulieri, nec cum illa ad unam mensam manducabis et bibes, aut sub uno tecto manebis, nisi in 440

ecclesia aut in alio publico loco ubi nulla mala suspicio possit esse, ut ibi coram testibus idoneis

pariter colloquamini, sic te Deus adiuuet. Hec est forma reconciliacionis: Ab isto die in

antea, istam tenebis sicut maritus uxorem suam in delectacione et debita disciplina, nec eam

per ullum ingenium malum a te separabis, nec ea uiuente aliam accipies, sic te Deus adiuuet.

Amen. Amen. 445

<12.> De iuramentis et utrum iuramenta metu extorta sunt obligatoria

Sequitur de iuramentis. Iuramentum est assercio uel negacio alicuius sub attestacione

rei sacre uel habite pro sacra, et debet tres habere comites: ueritatem, iudicium et

iusticiam; alioquin periurium dicitur, id est mendax iuracio, uel indiscreta uel illicita.

Veritas deest cum ex proposito falsum iuramus; iudicium, cum indiscrete iuramus; 450

iusticia, cum iniustum est quod iuramus. Si sub tuo iuramento duo sunt quorum

unum licitum aliud illicitum, licitum teneris implere, illicitum pro adiecto non

habetur.

Si iurasti te usuras soluturum, solue et postea repete solutas. Si te non repetiturum

iurasti, non repetas, set denuncia ecclesie et ecclesia coget tibi usuras restitui. / Sifol. 218ra 455

433 preceptum] precepti R 436 iudicis] indicit R 439 sociabis] associabis L O 444 ullum] nullum L O454 repete] repote R

170

iurasti te non denunciaturum, iam non tenet iuramentum, quia est contra illud

euangelii: si peccauerit et cetera.

Notandum quod ubi fraus uertitur ex parte iurantis, refertur iuramentum ad

intencionem recipientis; ubi uero ex parte recipientis, refertur ad intencionem

facientis. Ubi uero dolus est ex utraque parte, recurrendum est ad communem 460

uerborum intelligenciam; sic ubi neuter capit intellectum alterius et uterque credit se

bonum intellectum habere.

Quod dixi de iuramento non tenere si iuretur quod non denunciabitur peccatum

alicuius quia est contra euangelium, generaliter credo uerum esse et sic soluitur

questio qua queritur utrum, si a latronibus et sicariis detentus iurem quod non 465

indicabo eos alioquin me interficerent, possum eos postmodum indicare. Expedit

enim delicta nocencium nota esse et punita.

Notandum eciam quod uotum uel iuramentum impedit ne a maiori ad minus bonum

descendamus; set ne a minori ad maius, impedire non potest. Unde si aliquis iurat se

nunquam claustrum ingressurum uel simile quid facturum, salubrius mutabit 470

iuramentum quam tenebit; licet enim hoc fuerit licitum, non est expediens.

De electo qui iurauit se nunquam fore episcopum, distinguo utrum occultum fuerit an

manifestum, quia si occultum, agat penitenciam et episcopetur; si manifestum, teneat

iuramentum propter scandalum aliorum secundum propositum. Secundum

Gracianum uero quociens aliquis iurat se non facturum aliquid, quo expedicior sibi 475

uia preparetur ad beatitudinem, dummodo sine eo salutem ualeat inuenire,

iuramentum non prohibetur obseruare. Veluti cum aliquis a parentibus coactus, ut

clericatus tonsuram uel religionis uestem suscipiat, se neutrum facturum iuramento

firmauerit, hoc iuramentum nulla auctoritate / seruari prohibetur, cum sine hocfol. 218rb

salutem ualeat promereri, quia nonnulli in laicali habitu sanctissimi et Deo dilecti 480

habeantur.

456 contra … 457 peccauerit] Mt. 18:15-17 464 contra euangelium] Mt. 18:15-17 474 Secundum … 475Gracianum] C.22 q.4 d.p. c.23

456 tenet] illud add. L O 461 ubi] ut L O 464 est] om. L O 469 aliquis] quis L O 474 propositum]prepositiuum L, om. O 475 quo] quod R 480 Deo] om. R

171

Postea querendum utrum iuramenta metu extorta sint obligatoria, et uidetur quod qui

illud non obseruat periurus est. Solucio: Azo dicit, cuius opinionem Tancredus

amplectitur, quod iuramentum metu uel ui extortum neminem obligat. De tali metu

intelligitur qui contineat uite periculum uel corporis cruciatum uel eciam omnium 485

rerum ablacionem. Alanus et quidam alii notauerunt quod, si is qui metu iurat habeat

animum adimplendi, obligatur, alias non. Ceteri dicunt quod semper est

obligatorium, quia est uoluntarium licet metus precedat. Michi primum placet

dummodo talis sit metus qui possit cadere in constantem uirum, quod quidem tenet

in promissoriis iuramentis. 490

Secus in assertoriis ad que falso facienda, nulla racione debet quis induci. Nec dicitur

in illa decretali que uidetur contraria, scilicet si quisquam <dicit> quod illud

iuramentum sit obligatorium sicut nec contrarium. Set quod dicimus papa nulli uult

dare materiam peierandi quod esset, si hoc prescise diffiniret, quoniam multi

simularent metum ubi non esset, nisi uanus qui non excusat, et sic peierarent. 495

Item notandum quod in iuramento ius superioris iudicis semper debet esse

exemptum, ut semper eo saluo iuretur; multo forcius ius canonum saluum esse debet,

ut si iuretur contra canones, non obseruetur.

<13.> De falsis et illicitis iuramentis et iuramento fidelitatis

Falsa iuracio ignoranter facta adhibita omni diligencia nullum est peccatum; non 500

adhibita omni diligencia est peccatum ueniale uel, si in culpa fuit inquirendo, scilicet

noluit inquirere, mortale. Transgressor iuramenti, si licitum est, peccat mortaliter

transgrediendo; si illicitum est, / scilicet ut eius obseruacio uergat in interitum salutisfol. 218va

eterne, non peccat contraueniendo set peccauit iurando. Indiscretum iuramentum ex

deliberacione et proposito factum mortale peccatum est; si uero iocosa leuitate uel 505

incaute est ueniale. Mendacium scienter iuramento firmatum, illud semper est

482 Postea … 488 precedat] Gl. ord. ad X 2.24.8 (Comp. I, 2.17.4) v. iuramentum proprium 492 decretali]cfr X 2.24.8 (Comp. I, 2.17.4); X 2.24.15 (Comp. II, 2.16.6)

484 iuramentum] uel add. L O 485 omnium] omni R 487 adimplendi] implendi L O 491 in assertoriis]iuratoriis L, in atoriis O 494 dare … peierandi] matrimonium penuriandum (peurandi L) L O 497 exemptum]exemptus R 499 falsis] clericis L | fidelitatis] capitulum xiii add. L

172

mortale secundum Tancredum.

Nota quod iuramentum est illicitum quandoque ex persona iurantis, quia pueri ante

quatuordecim annos iurare non debent; quandoque ex persona suscipientis, quia

clericus coram laico iudice iurare non debet; quandoque ex ipso quod iuratur, puta si 510

est contra bonos mores; quandoque ex eo per quod iuratur, puta si quis iurat per

ydola; quandoque ex fine, ut si quis iurat patrono fidelitatem uel obedienciam

antequam ab episcopo sit admissus; quandoque ex causa precedente, sicut de Herode

qui propter saltacionem meretricis iurauit; quandoque ex modo, sicut de eo qui

iurauit se nunquam fore episcopum; quandoque ex tempore, sunt enim quedam 515

tempora in quibus sacramentum non est prestandum, nisi pro pace. Unde uersus:

Si iusiurandum licitum uis dicere, cernes,

Quis, cui, quid, per quid, ad quid, cur, quomodo, quando.

Nota quod talis penitencia imponenda est de periurio sponte facto qualis de adulterio

uel homicidio sponte commisso, et eciam habita racione de omnibus dampnis et 520

peccatis que propter hoc sunt commissa. Qui iurauit quod ad pacem litigans non

rediret uno anno a corpore Domini segregetur et ad pacem statim reddeat. Et ita patet

quod longe grauius peccat quis transgrediendo licitum iuramentum quam deducendo

rem illicitam in iusiurandum.

Item nota quod qui prouocat hominem ad iuracionem et scit eum falsum iuraturum 525

uincit homicidam, quia duas animas interficit, quod intelligo dictum esse perfectis de

consilio uel de eo qui cogit aliquem ad ferendum falsum testimonium in iudicio, sicut

rustici sepe faciunt pro dominis. Alioquin si utar / iure meo, nulli facio iniuriam. Itemfol. 218vb

nota quod in uoto uel iuramento, quandoque obligat se quis principaliter Deo

secundarie homini, et tunc non potest homo remittere iuramentum; quandoque 530

econuerso, et tunc potest. Item notandum quod mulieres, si constante matrimonio

iurent quod non repetent dotem alienatam a uiro, tenentur seruare huiusmodi

507 secundum Tancredum] cfr Gl. ord. ad X 2.24.11 (Comp. II, 2.16.2) v. additio 517 Si … 518 quando] cfrGl. ord. ad C.22 q.4 d.a. c.1 v. illicita; Gl. ord. ad X 2.24.11 (Comp. II, 2.16.2) v. additio

518 cui] tibi L O | quid2] quod L O 524 iusiurandum] usuram L, iusiuramentum O 526 homicidam]homicidium L O 530 secundarie] secundario L O 532 tenentur] O, tenetur L R

173

iuramentum sine ui et dolo sponte prestitum, licet non uideatur obligatorium

secundum leges.

Item nota quod in iuramento fidelitatis, scilicet quod uassallus tenetur prestare 535

domino, sex sunt attendenda: scilicet incolume, ne sit in dampnum domino suo de

corpore suo; tutum, ne sit in dampnum de secreto suo uel de municionibus per quas

tutus esse potest; honestum, ne sit ei in dampnum de iusticia sua; utile, ne sit in

dampnum de possessionibus suis; facile uel possibile, ne id bonum quod dominus

suus facere leuiter poterat faciat ei difficile uel impossibile; et quod in supradictis, 540

consilium et auxilium ei fideliter prestet. Ab hoc iuramento absoluit quandoque

dominus papa uassallos, puta cum domini sunt excommunicati. Si igitur dixeris quod

omnino possit remittere iuramentum, et contra ius naturale in casibus dispensare,

libenter amplector.

<14.> De uoto et eius speciebus et triplici habitu 545

Sequitur de uoto. Votum est concepcio melioris boni animi deliberacione firmata et

Deo oblata, scilicet per uocem. Aliter enim non obligat ut quidam dicunt. Votum aliud

simplex, aliud sollempne. Simplex, quod nullo fulcitur amminiculo; sollempne, quod

tribus modis sollempnizatur: ordine, ut subdiaconatu et supra; habitu, scilicet

religionis; professione, ut cum in presencia episcopi presente clero uouet aliquam 550

continenciam.

Similiter in presencia abbatis et fratrum dat se aliquis religioni, licet habitum non

mutet, illius abbatis factus est monachus ac si in capitulo reciperetur. Item si ad

infirmum aliquem mittitur monachus uel canonicus ut eum in monachum uel canoni-fol. 219ra

/-cum recipiat, si eum recipit per uerba per que solent intrantes in religionem recipi, 555

iam monachus factus est. Intantum sollempnizat uotum auctoritas prelati, ut episcopi

uel abbatis uel prioris, ubi non est abbas; de aliis prelatis non legi.

534 secundum leges] Dig. 23.3 535 Item … 540 impossibile] C.22 q.5 c.18 546 Votum … 551 continenciam]ROB. FLAM., Lib. poen., 1.3 (§17, 23) 547 quidam dicunt] cfr RUF, Summa ad C.27 q.1 pr. (435)552 Similiter … 561 libertas] ROB. FLAM., Lib. poen., 1.3 (§24-5)

536 sex … attendenda] om. L O | incolume] incolumen L O 542 dixeris] dixerit L O 543 possit] poterit L O545 habitu] capitulum xiiii add. L 548 quod nullo] om. L O 550 cum] om. L O 555 in] om. L O

174

Item si in facie ecclesie contraxisti cum aliqua licet ficte uel habitum suscepisti uel

crucem portasti, ad solucionem teneris, quia propter sollempnitatem plus est quod est

in opinione quam quod est in rei ueritate, et hoc nisi timore fiat, quia in uoto et 560

matrimonio non solum exigitur uoluntas set uoluntatis libertas.

Tamen notandum quod habitus sine professione monachum non facit, quod de plano

concedo, set sola professio uera uel presumpta monachum facit. De uera scias quod

ubicumque fiat in ecclesia uel extra ecclesiam, monachum facit et sollempnizat uotum.

Si uero quis in ecclesia suscipiat habitum, presumitur sollempnizasse uotum, ita quod 565

huic presumpcioni statur, nisi probetur in contrarium. Si autem extra ecclesiam

suscipiat habitum, non censetur monachus, nisi probetur contrarium.

Item triplex est habitus: professionis, qui sollempne uotum continencie habet

annexum; conuersionis, qui uotum continencie habet annexum, non tamen sollempne;

probacionis, qui nullum uotum habet annexum; item uotum aliud necessitatis, ut in 570

baptismo, aliud uoluntatis; item aliud per uerba de presenti, aliud per uerba de

futuro; item aliud absolutum, aliud condicionale, puta uoueo quod ieiunabo sabbatis, si

Deus reddiderit michi fratrem meum. Dicunt multi quod si moritur, nichilominus teneor

ieiunare, quia Deus forsitan melius michi et illi fecit quam si euaderet. Nos enim quid

oremus sicut oportet nescimus. Set hoc michi persuadere non possum, cum sic non 575

intendit se obligare. Alioquin non erit uotum condicionale set absolutum. Eadem est

racio de eo qui uouit se futurum monachum si Deus eum liberet de laqueis meretricis

et postea incidit. Alii igitur dicunt, inter quos / ego, quod sicut potestate superioris itafol. 219rb

defectu condicionis irritatur uotum, quia si non extat condicio, non tenet uoti

promissio. 580

<15.> De casibus circa uotum et quibus liceat habere proprium

Nota quod si quis sic uouit, uoueo quod continebo a Pascha in antea, et hoc in manu

573 Dicunt multi] cfr Gl. ord. ad C.32 q.7 c.1 v. conditione 578 Alii … dicunt] BERN. PAP., Sum. decr.,III.29.5

560 nisi] nichil R 570 habet] om. R | ut … 571 baptismo] om. L O 573 teneor] tenetur L O 575 sic] om. LO 577 de eo] om. R | uouit] uouerit L O 579 irritatur … condicio] om. L O 581 proprium] capitulum xvadd. L

175

publice persone, si ante Pascha contrahat, non auderem dicere quod non esset

matrimonium, set peccat quia reddit se inhabilem ad uoti explecionem. †Pub† dicit

quod non est matrimonium. 585

Item nota secundum multos quod si quis uotum expleat in mortali, solutus est, quia

uotum est gratuitum et tantum ad factum respexit. Penitencia uero ex debito est et in

caritate fieri debet.

Item nota quod indistincte recipimus in religionem eos qui uouerunt peregrinacionem

quamcumque, licet sint duo bona diuersa quorum neutrum tollit reliquum, et ad 590

utrumque se obligauit et utrumque potest adimplere. Ergo, ut uidetur, utrumque

tenetur adimplere.

Item secundum theologos quod circa diffinitum tempus uouetur, statim debetur.

Unde ille qui uouet se futurum album monachum si non fuerit niger, statim censetur

uoti transgressor donec uel hic uel ibi intret cum comode potest. Tenetur igitur ad 595

alterum, set <simul> ad neutrum tenetur. Item de eo qui uouet se intraturum

claustrum si socius suus intret cum eo, distingue per theologos. Nam si zelo Dei et

amore socii hoc uouet, tenetur eciam socio non intrante. Si tantum propter amorem

socii, non tenetur, nisi ipso intrante.

Item si quis uouet se intraturum hoc claustrum et post cognoscit omnia et spiritualia 600

et temporalia male disponi, non debet ibi set alias intrare, quia omnia uota de futuro

cum pendulo pie condicionis debent intelligi. Immo si iam intrasset et animam suam

saluare non posset, exire deberet exemplo beati Benedicti. Item de facto uouet quis in

manu abbatis se futurum album / monachum, post intrat claustrum sancti Victoris,fol. 219va

queritur an possit securus ibi manere an teneatur ad monachacionem. Et uidetur quod 605

perseuerare possit, quia iam quasi nauigauit et quasi uxorem duxit; et hoc placet

584 Pub] locum non inueni, fort. Gerald Pucelle; cfr Gl. ord. ad D.27 c.2, v. post uotum; Gl. ord. ad C.27 q.1c.1, v. quod uouentes 586 secundum multos] locum non inueni, cfr PET. CANT., Sum. de sacr., 3.238593 secundum theologos] cfr PET. CANT., Sum. de sacr., 3.224-6, 277 597 theologos] locum non inueni

584 Pub] pul L O 594 uouet] uouit L O 596 simul] si O, om. L R 597 distingue per] distinguitur sic L O598 Si … 599 intrante] om. L O 600 cognoscit … et2] cognoscat omnia L O 602 pendulo] pendule R

176

Tancredo quia non tenetur nisi ad substanciam uoti, scilicet religionem, non ad

accidens, scilicet religionem monachalem. Non enim putamus religiosos canonicos a

sanctorum monachorum consorcio seiunctos, et inter canonicos regulares et monachos

modica est differencia. 610

Si monachus efficitur episcopus, maius sacramentum absorbet minus uotum, precipue

in proprietate habenda, tamen habitum mutare non debet. Leprosis uouentibus uiuere

sine proprio dantur certi numeri ad emenda que uoluerint; non est proprietas, nisi

aceruum colligant uel ad illicitum expediant. Similiter secundum canones nec <est

proprietas> si in cenobio quod totum est de usura alicui detur pecunia ut seorsum sibi 615

emat necessaria et hoc de licencia abbatis; sic et monachus quando habet proprium

efficitur heremita.

Item quidam renunciant proprietati ut nichil habeant nisi quod datur eis uel quod

lucrantur propriis manibus, ut apostoli et heremite. Hii seruare possunt necessaria ad

annum non plus, quia ipsi operantur in terra et fructus non reddeunt nisi annuatim. 620

Alii autem ut nichil habeant nisi per manus superiorum, ut claustrales, uel nichil licet

habere nisi abbatis permissione. Set nec abbas nec papa posset cum eis dispensare ut

proprium habeant. Clerico autem uel collegio licet sibi prouidere usque ad

quinquennium exemplo Ioseph, dummodo nullus egestate peccet mortaliter ipso

scitente; et id quod seruatur, seruetur ad opus eque bonum, ut si daretur tunc. 625

Episcopi autem et reges possunt congregare thesaurum in usum debitum.

Quedam matrona uouit se non habituram manicas consucicias, quod uir suus reuocat,

/ et credo posse, licet soleat dici irritari non debere, nisi que ad abstinenciam pertinent.fol. 219vb

Feminis enim se ornari permittitur propter maritos.

607 Tancredo] cfr Gl. ord. ad X 3.31.13 v. non faciat habitus (Comp. II, 3.18.4) 614 canones] C.14 q.3 c.2-4624 Ioseph] Gn. 41:48-9

607 Tancredo] cantori L O 614 ad … expediant] aliquod illicitum expendant L O 615 si] om. R | detur]addetur R 618 quidam] quidem R 625 scitente] sciente L O Ra.c. | id] illud L O 627 manicas] magicas Rconsucicias] consucas L, conficitas O

177

<16.> Que persone sine licencia aliorum uouere non possunt, et de reuocacione uoti 630

uel dispensacione

Vouere potest quelibet persona que sui iuris est. Que autem alii subiecta est sine eius

consensu uouere non potest, ut monachus sine consensu abbatis, nec mulier sine

assensu uiri, nec filia quamdiu est in potestate patris, que potestas est reuocandi

usque ad duodecimum annum expletum in puella et quartadecimum in puero. In 635

quindecimo autem anno, id est in fine quindecimi anni, in uoluntate sua est uel

remanere uel recedere, non ultra. Item seruus sine licencia domini sui non potest

uouere, maxime quod cedit in preiudicium domini sui.

Tamen quelibet talis persona aliquid proprium habet quod sine consensu alterius

potest uouere, ut mulier quod non exigat a uiro debitum, et sicut pares sunt in uoto 640

continencie uir et uxor sic et peregrinacionis. Non enim possunt eciam oracionem

uacare, nisi ex mutuo consensu. Speciale tamen est in peregrinacione terre sancte,

quod inuita uxore potest uir crucem assumere. Ipsa tamen si remanere noluerit uirum

sequatur euntem, quod fit tantum in necessitate populi Christiani et pro bono publico,

sicut expedicione terrestris regis inuita uxore uadit uir, alias idem iudicium de hac 645

peregrinacione quod de aliis.

Si autem aliqua predictarum personarum sine consensu sui superioris aliquid uouerit,

superior racione inspecta potest illud reuocare et illa tenetur obedire, ut uir uotum

mulieris reuocat, siue ante matrimonium emissum fuerit siue post, eciam si de

consensu uiri fuerit emissum <et> eciam si uotum fuerit continencie, ut quidam 650

dicunt, nisi ipse similiter uouerit. Item ita de abbate et monacho iudicandum est. Nec

beneficiatus / clericus sine licencia sui episcopi debet peregrinari. Utique uir peccat, sifol. 220ra

sine causa racionabili reuocat uxoris uotum; illa autem sine culpa est propter bonum

obediencie. Semper tamen debet captare oportunitatem ut uotum obseruet.

Paterfamilias et tutor uotum sollempne filie et pupilli potest reuocare per annum et 655

632 Vouere … 640 uouere] ROB. FLAM., Lib. poen., 1.3 (§18) 647 Si … 655 Paterfamilias] ROB. FLAM., Lib.poen., 1.3 (§18-9) 650 quidam … 651 dicunt] cfr ROB. FLAM., Lib. poen., 1.3 (§19); C.33 q.5 c.11, 16

631 dispensacione] capitulum xvi add. L 648 superior] superiorum L, superiori O 649 fuerit] eciam (et L) sifuerit uotum continencie add. L O 651 Item ita] idem L O

178

diem postquam sciuit, postea non.

Votum autem cum sit de lege naturali, scilicet lege uel euangelio, dicente propheta

uouete et reddite, hoc recte factum nemo irritare potest. Simplex tamen uotum quod est

tibi impossibile, potest episcopus commutare, et eciam quedam sollempnia, ut

peregrinaciones alias a terra sancta. Super hanc enim propter bonum publicum 660

dispensandi potestatem habent tantum illi quibus hoc a papa committitur specialiter.

In commutacione autem uoti semper recurrendum est ad episcopum, set uotum

continencie commutare non potest, quia nichil eo sanctius uel excellencius est, sic nec

uotum religionis, et ita indispensabile est.

Ius eciam ipsum in quibusdam dispensat, ut si intrasti religionem tibi importabilem, 665

intra leuiorem. Item si protesteris in ingressu quod tantum probandi causa ingrederis,

licite cum uolueris recedere potes. Item uotum quodcumque soluetur, si intrat quis

religionem. In uoti autem relaxacione tria sunt precipue attendenda: quid liceat

secundum equitatem, et quid deceat secundum honestatem, quid expediat secundum

utilitatem. 670

<17.> Quid iuris cum alter coniugatorum conuertitur altero remanente in seculo

Reuocatur eciam uotum sollempne, ut si uir uel mulier post carnalem copulam sine

consensu alterius intrat religionem, a reliquo reuocabitur, nisi intrans in continenti

uelit adulterium alterius probare. Post carnalem copulam dixi, quia ante potest alter

altero inuito religionem / intrare et eciam ad heremitorium sicut ad monachacionem etfol. 220rb 675

qui relinquitur aliam ducere.

Igitur ad hoc quod ualeat uiri conuersio, oportet quod mulier similiter conuertatur si

iuuenis sit uel ad minus castitatem perpetuam promittat si uetula sit. Set esto quod sit

657 Votum … 658 potest] ROB. FLAM., Lib. poen., 1.3 (§25) 658 uouete … reddite] Ps. 75:12 | Simplex … 660 peregrinaciones] ROB. FLAM., Lib. poen., 1.3 (§26) 665 Ius … 666 leuiorem] ROB. FLAM. Lib. poen., 1.3(§26) 668 In … 670 utilitatem] Comp. III, 3.26.2 (X 3.34.7) 672 Reuocatur … 674 probare] ROB. FLAM., Lib.poen., 1.3 (§21)

660 alias] aliquas alia L O | enim] autem L O 666 protesteris] proficeris L O 667 potes] potest R 669 et]om. R 671 seculo] capitulum xvii add. L 673 intrat] om. R | reuocabitur] potest reuocari L O677 similiter] om. L O

179

iuuenis, nunquid uouet dando ei licenciam? Laurencius dicit, si scit ius uel ei dicitur,

intellige eam uouere, alias non. Igitur antequam uir conuertatur oportet quod 680

disponatur de muliere. Idem iudicium de coniugatis ordinandis, ut de monasterium

ingredientibus. Speciale tamen est quod nullus uxoratus potest in episcopum assumi,

nisi uxor prius professa sit continenciam, sacrum uelamen sibi imponat et religiosam

uestem sibi assumat. Quod si inuita uxore quis intrat monasterium, eadem ipsum

repetente cogetur ad uxorem redire. Set ea mortua non tenetur ad monasterium redire 685

racione uoti quod non tenuit, tamen ultra non potest uxorem accipere. Unde uersus:

Ante thorum monachor, alium ualet uxor adire,

Inuita monachor uxore, reducor obire,

Contigit hanc teneor, set non ad claustrum redire.

Claustra uiro subeunte uouet quod casta manebit aut uestem mutat, si presul iam 690

tenebit aut subit, si etatem suspicionis habit. Quid si is qui per uxorem reuocatus est

contrahat? Dixerunt fere omnes quod est matrimonium. Nunquid enim se obligauit

ad non <debitum> reddendum, ergo adhuc reddere potest, set ad matrimonium

contrahendum tantum exigitur reddere, ergo adhuc contrahere potest. Albertus, cum

quo et ego, dicit quod si contrahit, non est matrimonium, quia obligauit se ad non 695

exigendum simpliciter et ad nulli reddendum unquam, quod quidem potuit excepta

uxore sua, qua sublata firmum manet uotum ex utraque sui parte. /fol. 220va

Illud eciam non omittendum quod quidam prescise dicunt quod licencia uxoris non

sufficit sine licencia episcopi, immo episcopus potest tales reuocare. Ex quo datur

intelligi quod illud tale diuorcium non debet fieri, nisi coram episcopo uel eius certo 700

nuncio uel qui ab eo habet potestatem de matrimoniis cognoscendi et diffiniendi. Nos

autem primam opinionem sequimur, contraria intelligentes de licencia extorta uel

679 Laurencius dicit] Gl. ord. ad X 3.32.9 v. consentiente uxore (Comp. II, 3.19.1) 682 Speciale … 684assumat] X 3.32.6 (Comp. I, 3.28.6) 692 Dixerunt … 697 parte] locum non inueni, cfr Gl. ord. ad X 3.31.3 v.non exigere (Comp. I, 3.28.3) 698 quidam … dicunt] Gl. ord. ad X 3.32.9 v. de iure ad religionem (Comp. II,3.19.1)

679 scit ius] ciuus L, sciuis O 680 intellige] intelligo L O 683 sit] om. R 684 intrat] intret L O 686 potest]potuit L, poterit O 689 Contigit … redire] om. L O 690 mutat] uxor add. Rs.l. | iam] iura L O 691 tenebit]uir add. Rs.l. | si1] om. L O, post etatem R | habit] habebit L O, uxor add. Rs.l. 692 Nunquid enim] numquamL O 693 ergo] igitur L O | set] si L O 696 nulli] O, nullius L, illum R

180

perturbata. Cum enim clericus inuito episcopo possit ad religionem transire, multo

forcius laicus qui minus est ei subditus.

Item sciendum quod si uir et uxor intrent hospitale, non debent simul cohabitare set 705

in diuersis domiciliis commorari.

<18.> De decimis et primiciis et de quibus rebus dande sunt decime

Queritur de decimis et primiciis. Queritur ergo an primicie sint in precepto, et plane

dicendum quod ita et sunt inter quadragesimam et sexagesimam de primitiuis

fructibus terre. Set quid in pecudibus datur primogenitum? Huguccio tamen dicit de 710

ducentis unum dandum, et si tot non habet capita, secundum numeri illius

estimacionem soluat. Durum enim uidetur dare primogenitum, si quis non habet nisi

duo capita, et minimum si habet sescenti, uel decem forte. Hodie quia non exiguntur,

accipit pro eis ecclesia compensacionem oblacionum uoluntariarum.

De decimis sciendum quod ille decime necessario sunt soluende que debentur ex lege 715

diuina uel loci consuetudine approbata, et expressum est quod de prouentibus

molinorum, piscariarum, feno et lana, equicio, pomis, piris et apibus. De pecoribus,

orto, negocio, uenacione, clibano, de istis omnibus in canonibus est expressum et forte

de aliis et generaliter de omnibus licite adquisitis. Quid de illicite adquisitis? Puta de

meretricio; secundum Alanum, credo et ego meretricem ad decimam de suo lucro 720

teneri. Sacerdos tamen non debet eam recipere, ne uideretur impunitatem prestare,

sicut et quandoque oblaciones aliorum respuuntur racione criminis. Idem dico in aliis

ubicumque repeticio locum non / habet.fol. 220vb

Decime autem que dantur racione prediorum a quocumque, eciam inuasore, exigende

sunt. Nam ecclesia suum accipit. Unde Iudei eciam ad hoc sunt compellendi et eciam 725

710 Huguccio … dicit] Gl. ord. ad X 3.30.1 v. in primitiis (Comp. II, 3.17.1); cfr HUG. Summa ad C.13 q.1 d.p.c.1 716 expressum … 717 apibus] X 3.30.5, 6 (Comp. I, 3.26.2, 3); X 3.30.28 (Comp. III, 3.23.5)718 canonibus] C.12 q.2 c.26-31 720 Alanum] cfr Gl. ord. ad X 3.30.23 v. licite (Comp. II, 3.17.7)724 Decime … 725 accipit] Gl. ord. ad X 3.30.23 v. licite (Comp. II, 3.17.7)

707 rebus] om. L | decime] capitulum xviii add. L 709 de … 710 terre] om. R 711 numeri] numerum L,numun O 717 molinorum] molendum L O, molinor R 720 de … lucro] om. L O 721 uideretur] eam add. LO 724 Decime] Lp.c., decimas La.c. O R 725 ad hoc] adhuc R

181

ad oblaciones debitas quas a Christianis de domibus et possessionibus percipere

consueuit ecclesia antequam ad Iudeos quocumque titulo deuenissent. Set quid si in

odium ecclesie nolint colere predia Iudei isti uel eciam Catholici? Secundum

Laurencium compelli possunt cum decime sint tributa egencium uel credimus eos

condempnari debere ad interesse. 730

De omnibus igitur ubi translatum est dominium, nec habet locum repeticio <et> sunt

decime persoluende; puta hystriones, deciarii, adulatores et huiusmodi. De

adulatoribus tamen infra distinguendum est ubi de restitucione agetur.

De rebus decimatis, legatis, inuentis, iure successionis adquisitis, secundum Alanum

non tenetur quis decimas dare, set ex hiis que naturaliter uel ex operibus suis quis 735

adquirit; de aliis non reperitur. Edictum de decimis preceptorium est, id est de hiis

tenetur quis decimas dare, de quibus est expressum sicut de matrimonio contrahendo

prohibitorium est. Alii contra.

<19.> Item de eodem et de decimis negociatorum

De negociatoribus dicimus quod in fine anni computare debent et compensare lucrum 740

cum dampno, et si quid accreuerit de excremento, dare decimas tenentur tantum

dummodo prior pars tota prius fuerit decimata.

Notandum ergo quod de omnibus satis et plantatis et de omnibus fructibus

possessionum et animalium et de obuencionibus et redditibus omnibus, non deductis

expensis decime sunt soluende. De hiis uero que proueniunt ex negociacione uel 745

artificio, primo sunt deducende expense et de residuo decime soluende. Secundum

Laurencium filius heres decimam hereditatis ad eum deuolute dare non debet, quia

una persona reputatur cum patre, quia iure nature sibi debita est et sola

728 Secundum … 729 Laurencium] cfr Gl. ord. ad X 3.30.26 v. casus (Comp. III, 3.23.2) 733 infra] JOHN OFKENT, Summa, 2.1043-9 734 secundum … 738 contra] cfr Gl. ord. ad X 3.30.23 v. licite (Comp. II, 3.17.5)746 Secundum … 754 ecclesiarum] cfr Gl. ord. ad X 3.30.28 v. quasi de lucro (Comp. III, 3.23.5)

727 in … 728 odium] non dum L, medium O 728 eciam] et R 730 ad] O, om. L, ab R 731 repeticio] L,recepcio O, repecio R 732 deciarii] deccarii L O 733 tamen] om. L O | est] om. R 735 set … 737 dare] om.R 736 reperitur] et dicit add. L Oa.c. 739 Item] om. L | negociatorum] capitulum xix add. L 741 quid]aliquid L O 747 filius] suus L O R | decimam] decimas L O

182

amministracio ei deest. Extraneus autem heres, cum tota hereditas sit ei lucrum,

decimam eius dare tenetur; sic legatarius, donatarius, inuentarius / hoc racionabilefol. 221ra 750

uidetur. Quidam autem contradicunt dicentes quod de immobilibus nullus decimas

dare debet, quoniam cum Deus terram alienam dederit filiis Israel tantum de fructibus

dari decimas mandauit, et quia fructus consumuntur et terra permanet, si de hiis

possessionibus daretur decima, cito omnes possessiones essent ecclesiarum.

Item nota quod exactionem tributorum et censuum precedere debet solucio 755

decimarum uel saltem hii, ad quos census et tributa indecimata peruenerint, ea

decimare cogentur. Distingo tamen secundum Vincencium quod nisi pro tributo datur

aliquota pars omnium fructuum, ut tercia uel quarta, si precederit decima ante quarte

solucionem, non habet necesse rex uel princeps decimare eam iterum quia iam

decimata est, et est minor quam si decimacio non precederet, et iam nichil abest 760

parrochiali ecclesie. Si uero rex non habet pro tributo partem aliquotam set certam

mensuram, ut duos medios uini, tres corbas frumenti uel certam quantitatem pecunie,

in eo casu licet deducatur decima de omnibus que dantur parrochiali ecclesie in cuius

parrochia est predium positum, tamen adhuc rex dare debet decimam, quia tantum

recipit ac si decima non precessisset, unde decimam prestare tenetur. Si queritur cui, 765

dico quod ubi habet domicilium uel sedem regalem, et est racio quia parrochiali

ecclesie ubi est predium nichil abest cum omnes fructus ibi fuerint decimati et rex non

est parrochianus. Idem est si rusticus de pane decimato donet corbem mercennario,

quia ille de hoc debet decimam quasi de lucro suo.

<20.> De decimis religiosorum et utrum in feodum laicis dari possint 770

Quia iura uaria inueniuntur et contraria de decimis monachorum, ideo notandum

quod monachi in primitiua ecclesia decimas de laboribus et prediis suis debebant

752 Deus … 753 mandauit] Lv. 27:30-32 755 exactionem … 757 cogentur] Conc. Lat. IV, c.54757 secundum Vincencium] cfr Gl. ord. ad X 3.30.26 v. sic et dominus (Comp. III, 3.23.2) 771 ideo … 778suorum] Gl. ord. ad X 3.30.10 v. laborum suorum (Comp. I, 3.26.10)

749 cum] om. L O 750 decimam] decimas L O 751 autem] tamen L O 755 exactionem] exactio Oa.c.,exactione R 757 Distingo] distinctio R | tributo] tota L O 758 precederit] L, predecimatur O, prededucaturR 759 non] ut R 760 nichil abest] non est L, nihil obest O 767 nichil] non L O 770 feodum] foribus L

183

sicut laici. Postea Paschalis secundus et Gregorius et concilium Magoncium statuerunt

quod / nec monachi nec religiosi nec alii communiter uiuentes decimas de suisfol. 221rb

laboribus soluerent. Processu temporis hoc priuilegium tantum Cisterciensibus, 775

Hospitalariis, Ierosolimitis et Templariis concessum fuit ab Adriano, aliis uero

monachis concessis tantum decimis de noualibus suis que suis manibus colunt et ortis

et nutrimentis animalium suorum, ac eundem Adrianum secutus est Alexander et

hodie catholica tenet ecclesia. Est igitur dicendum quod monachi albi non debent dare

decimas de possessionibus suis quas colunt manibus suis, nisi per transactionem uel 780

pactum teneantur uel nisi enormiter ledatur ecclesia parrochialis uel nisi solummodo

priuilegio suo renunciauerint. Unde uersus:

Transactum, iactura grauis, aliusque colonus,

Persoluens decime iure refundit onus.

Monachi uero nigri et canonici regulares de omnibus possessionibus suis tenentur 785

dare decimas, nisi de noualibus suis ortis et nutrimentis animalium suorum, et eciam

de noualibus tenentur dare decimas, si leditur ecclesia enormiter. Quod uerum est

generaliter, nisi super decimis sint priuilegiati a domino papa uel nisi possint se

prescripcione tueri; et omnia supradicta uera sunt de hiis qui populum non regunt.

Nam si populum habent, possunt suscipere decimas tam prediales quam personales. 790

Quod autem dictum est de Cisterciensibus intelligendum est de terris ante concilium

adquisitis. Nam si hodie terras alienas adquirant et eas propriis manibus aut

sumptibus excolant, decimas persoluunt ecclesiis quibus antea racione prediorum

soluebantur, nisi aliter cum ipsis ecclesiis componant, et hoc ad omnes alios

priuilegiatos extenditur. Clerici autem seculares ad decimas prediales tenentur et 795

patrimoniales; secus de personalibus ut dicunt multi. Leprosi communiter uiuentes de

ortis et nutrimentis suis decimas non soluent.

773 Paschalis … Gregorius] cfr C.16 q.1 c.47 | concilium Magoncium] cfr C.16 q.1 c.45 776 Adriano]Comp. I, 3.26.15 778 Alexander] X 3.30.10 (Comp. I, 3.26.10) 791 concilium] Conc. Lat. IV, c.55796 dicunt multi] cfr Gl. ord. ad X 3.30.16 v. persolvendas (Comp. I, 3.26.28); cfr Gl. ord. ad X 3.30.20 v.personales (Comp. I, 3.26.29)

773 secundus] secundus L O 777 que] quas L O 780 possessionibus] laboribus L O 781 pactum] peccatumR | solummodo] soluendo L O 782 renunciauerint] renunciauerunt L O 783 aliusque] aliusue R787 leditur] ledatur L O 792 adquirant] adquirunt L O 794 alios] om. L O 797 suis] om. L O

184

Utrum autem decime in feodum / dari possint laicis questio est, ut habet consuetudofol. 221va

Romana et tocius fere orbis et uidetur quod non, quia debent esse cibus Leuitarum qui

seruiunt Domino, et illis dari a quibus spiritualia recipiuntur; preterea feodum transit 800

ad heredes, donacio eciam, decime non. Distingunt quidam quod iure spirituali laicis

competere non possunt, tamen est quoddam ius ciuile quod concedi eis potest. Taliter

decime duplici iure debentur ecclesie racione obsequii diuini in ea prestiti, et hec ius

percipiendi decimas mere spirituale est et non potest in laicum cadere. Item debentur

in signum subiectionis et dominii uniuersalis, et hoc ius non est ita spirituale ut 805

primum, immo est ciuile uel quasi, et potest cadere in laicum etsi non in totum, saltem

quod ad fructuum percepcionem; et secundum illud ius possidendi possunt a laico in

feodum concessisse, precipue decime que antiquitus laicis sunt concesse. De nouo

autem nulle eis decime concedi possunt sicut nec alia feoda ecclesie.

Sunt quidam qui ita stricte iudicant quod laicus nullum ius percipiendi decimas uel 810

emere uel possidere potest neque per annum, neque per instans. Potest tamen clericus

decimas iam perceptas uendere uel dare cui uult. Ex hoc patet quod episcopus uel

clericus non potest renunciare iuri suo et remittere laico solucionem decimarum, quia

istud introductum est in fauorem omnium tam clericorum, quia Leuite inde

sustentandi sunt, quam laicorum, scilicet pro obediencia seruanda. Nam ante tempus 815

Leuitarum decime soluebantur in signum uniuersalis dominii. Item preceptum est

quod Leuitis soluantur decime. Ex hoc sequitur quod illas debent percipere, cui

precepto non possunt renunciare. Item consimiliter iudicandum est de prohibicione

usurarum et solucione decimarum. Set licet ex libera uoluntate dantis recipiam

usuras, tamen quia prohibitum est, pecco moraliter; ergo cum soluere decimas est 820

preceptum, licet ex / uoluntate Leuitarum non soluam, retinendo tamen peccofol. 221vb

moraliter.

801 Distingunt … 811 instans] Gl. ord. ad X 3.30.17 v. concesserit (Comp. II, 3.17.2) 816 preceptum] Nm.18:21

798 feodum] feodis L O 801 ad] in L O | eciam] autem L O | Distingunt] dicunt L O | spirituali] spiritualeR 802 ius] om. R | Taliter] Lp.c. O, g aliter La.c.R 803 iure] racione L O | hec ius] hoc L, hoc modo O804 mere] emere L O 807 quod] quo L O | possidendi] L, possideri O R 808 concessisse] concedi L,concesse O 815 sustentandi] sustentandi L O 820 pecco] peccato R 821 pecco] peccato R

185

<21.> De usuris et turpi lucro et utrum in aliquo casu liceat usuras exigere

Nunc de usuris que ad periculum animarum pertinent breuiter expediemus. Est igitur

usura lucrum preter sortem ex pacto debitum uel exactum; hoc additur nam si sine 825

pacto aliquid datur creditori, non est usura. Possum enim sperare ut michi in simili

casu subueniat debitor et eciam si exprimam, non credo peccare. Constat autem usura

tam in speciebus quam denariis, scilicet mutuando tres modios frumenti uel uini pro

quatuor ad certum tempus. Set et sub usura continetur si de pignore quod tenes

receperis ultra sortem deductis expensis, nisi beneficium ecclesie fuerit quod sic licet 830

clerico eruere de manu laici.

Est autem aliud quod dicitur turpe lucrum quod non est usura, set fit causa

improbande cupiditatis; puta, emis uile ut serues et carius uendas. Set hic distinguo

quod lucrum: aliud ex commodato, ut commendaui tibi equum a Parisius usque

Rothomagum pro decem; aliud ex locato, ut locaui tibi domum per annum pro 835

centum; aliud ex artificio, ut emi membranas et scripsi librum et uendidi. Hec tria

lucra licita sunt et honesta; aliud ex mutuo et tunc usura est, ut dixi, si pactum

precedat uel sequatur extorsio, nam si gratis a debitore offertur, non reprehendo;

aliud ex negociatura et tunc quandoque est lucrum honestum, quandoque turpe.

Honestum, ut si emas species Alexandrie et ducas Parisius ut carius uendas; turpe, ut 840

supra dixi.

Quamquam autem negociacio laicis permittatur, tamen clericis inhibetur, nisi in casu,

quando scilicet clericus pauper est, et rem emptam suo artificio uel labore reddit

meliorem. Puta, emit materiam ligni et facit ciphos uel emit pullum et nutrit / uel infol. 222ra

agriculturam se exercet quod non prohibetur, dum tamen propter hoc ecclesie 845

officium non omittat.

827 Constat … 829 tempus] BERN. PAP., Sum. decr., V.15.2 832 Est … 844 nutrit] BERN. PAP., Sum. decr.,V.15.4

823 turpi … utrum] triplici turpi lucro et uidetur L | exigere] capitulum xxi add. L 829 et] om. L O833 improbande] om. L O | serues et] om. L O | distinguo] distingo L O 834 commendaui] commodaui L,comodam O 841 supra] superius L O 843 uel] et L O 845 dum] om. L O 846 officium] officia L O

186

Licet igitur usura omnimode prohibeatur, tamen in duobus casibus permitti uidetur:

primo, ut exigatur ab eo cui iuste arma inferuntur, ut Sarraceno; secundo, ut quando

laicus habet ecclesiasticum beneficium possunt clerici fructus illos recipere ultra

sortem. Primam tamen excepcionem calumpniantur quidam et in secundo casu non 850

uidetur usura, set rei proprie recuperacio. A Iudeo autem non licet usuras exigere,

quia Iudei non ferunt arma contra ecclesiam, set ubique seruire parati sunt. Unde

clericus a nullo potest usuras exigere, quia contra neminem licet ei arma portare. Si

ergo Christianus usuras habuit a Iudeo, reddat non Iudeo set eis a quibus credit

Iudeum usuras extorsisse. Quod si nesciat, pro animabus eorum consilio ecclesie; et 855

hoc Iudeo insinuet.

Restat aliquos casus ponere in quibus committi et non committi uidetur usura. In

mercato igitur triplex et usurarius contractus occurrit. Primo, de eo qui uendit pullum

suum uel aliud simile ualentem nunc decem pro uiginti usque ad sex menses. Quo

casu uidetur usurarius contractus, nisi separetur quod in tantum melioretur runcinus 860

tunc quantum pro eo additur. Secundo, de eo qui uendit merces ualentes nunc uiginti

pro triginta ad certum diem, et hoc uidetur contractus usurarius, nisi dubium sit

merces illas plus minusue tempore solucionis ualituras. Tercio, de eo qui emit granum

ad futuras messiones uel uinum ad futuras uindemias, quo casu non est usura propter

incertum rei euentum, sicut de eo qui emit iactum retis, nisi forte nimis ita solitum 865

precium emisti ut lucrum non uideatur incertum.

Si prestitisti modium frumenti cum ualeret decem et recepisti cum ualeret uiginti uel

eciam ipsos denarios, non est usura. Si quis tibi domum suam pro decem exposuit hac

condicione ut, nisi infra / certum tempus redimeretur, tua esset, usura est quiafol. 222rb

condicio illa tibi lucrosa fuit. Si scolaris pro marcha non potest habere de manu ad 870

manum, nisi quadraginta solidos parisiensium, et dat pro quadraginta quinque ut in

847 Licet … 850 sortem] BERN. PAP., Sum. decr., V.15.5 850 calumpniantur quidam] cfr Gl. ord. ad C14 q.4c.12 v. cui 857 In … 866 incertum] BERN. PAP., Sum. decr., V.15.7 870 Si … 872 est] ROB. FLAM., Lib.poen., 4.5 (§218)

847 permitti uidetur] om. L O 848 ab eo] om. L O | inferuntur] referuntur L O 853 portare] ferre L O856 insinuet] de casibus qui contingunt circa usuram add. L in rubrica, spatium vacuum habet O 857 et] uelL O 858 usurarius] emendaui cum BERN. PAP., usitacior L O R 860 nisi] nunc L O 863 illas] illa L, om. O865 nimis] minus L, om. O 868 tibi] inter R

187

qualibet septimana quinque solidos recipiat ad expensam, usura est. Si prestat super

culcitram uiginti solidos et utitur culcitra in lecto suo et in fine anni recipit omnes

denarios suos, usura est, quia ei aliquid preter sortem accedit quod usu deterioratur.

In nundinis mercatorum consuetudo est ut sibi inuicem credant debita sua usque ad 875

generalem solucionem, que dicitur paement. Si ergo pro uiginti libris parisiensium non

potuisti habere de manu ad manum, nisi uiginti tres libras turonensium, et accepisti

uiginti sex ad generalem solucionem, non uidetur michi esse usura, quia expectacio

temporis non emitur. Si enim creditor tuus accessisset, statim satisfecisset ei debitor

tuus. Set emitur contractus cum aliis personis, quod dicit debitor tuus dabo tibi uiginti 880

sex libras, si permiseris me satisfacere pro te aliis creditoribus tuis. Ecce hic certus dies non

expectatur, set quandocumque aliquis creditor tuus repetet aliquid a te, satisfaciet ei

qui argentum tuum emit, et ideo non est expectacio, nec usura, alioquin esset.

Si nolueris dare debitori tuo dilacionem solucionis, nisi tibi aliquid expectacio dederit,

licet et forte contractus non sit usurarius, tamen non es immunis a culpa, set in iudicio 885

animarum reus usure iudicaris.

Quid ergo dicendum de penis que in talibus poni et peti solent, ut faciunt omnes

mercatores Romani? Respondeo, restat an pena sit iudicialis, id est a iudice apposita,

an conuencionalis, id est uoluntate contrahencium constituta. Si iudicialis exigitur,

non credo quod sit usura, sicut enim iuste possidet qui per iudicem possidet, sic et 890

iuste exigit. Si conuencionalis, aut fit in fraudem usurarum aut in metu / pene, adfol. 222va

diem statutum soluatur. Si in fraudem usurarum, usura est. Presumitur autem in

fraudem apponi, cum nomine mutato instar sequitur usurarum, ut illa quam

creditores Bononie scolaribus ultra montanis faciunt. Puta si ad proximas nundinas

pecunia non soluitur, soluet pro singulis marcis singulas uncias nomine pene, et sic in 895

reliquis nundinis. Vel si ad diem pecunia non soluitur, abinde dabit per singulos

menses singulas marcas nomine pene. Si autem pena exigitur tantum, ut metu pene

875 In … 886 iudicaris] ROB. FLAM., Lib. poen., 4.5 (§217) 884 Si … 899 soluta] BERN. PAP., Sum. decr.,V.15.8-9

875 consuetudo] condicio L O 876 ergo] igitur L O 878 non] om. R 879 accessisset] statim add. L O881 Ecce hic] et hoc L O 882 repetet] recepit R 884 dilacionem] Lp.c., est La.c. O R | expectacio] ex pacto LO 885 et] om. L O 888 an] autem R 889 est] uoluntaria add. L O

188

die statuta soluatur ea commissa, non puto usuram si exigitur, maxime si dampnum

passus est creditor pro pecunia non soluta.

Item nota quod usurarii nec ad communionem altaris admittuntur, nec eorum oblacio 900

a sacerdote, et eciam ecclesiastica sepultura priuantur. Clericus usurarius suspenditur

et nisi cesset deponitur:

Stans usura merum deponit et alea clerum.

Nota quod tam usurarius quam eius heres compelluntur ad reddendas usuras, quia

turpia lucra sunt ab heredibus extorquenda. Set de restitucione plenius infra, et scias 905

quod hoc crimen est mere ecclesiasticum et ideo super hoc ad iudicem ecclesiasticum

recurrendum.

<22.> De casibus qui contingunt circa usuram secundum theologos

Superest adhuc ut aliquos casus de usura explicemus. Igitur secundum Cantorem, si

quis hereditatem alicuius emat usque ad decem annos ita quod uenditor rem teneatur 910

redimere, emptor non potest interim legittime recipere fructus, quia hec necessitas

incumbit uenditori ut redimat, set si arbitrio eius relinquatur ut redimat uel non,

legittimus est contractus. Quod si locet quis hereditatem alicui pro certo precio usque

ad decem annos, fructus medio tempore percepti sui sunt licet receperit ultra sor-/-fol.222vb

tem. 915

Diues non commodans indigenti, dummodo securus sit, similis est rapienti. Quid

enim interest an aliena rapias an tua non des? Si quis tamen paciatur dampnum in

mutuo, potest recipere quantum dampnificatus est. Unde dicit Cantor quod si

dominus debet seruo decem ad terminum statutum et promittat ei uiginti ut expectet,

900 Item … 903 clerum] BERN. PAP., Sum. decr., V.15.11 904 Nota … 907 recurrendum] BERN. PAP., Sum.decr., V.15.10,14 905 infra] JOHN OF KENT, Summa, 2.995-1085 909 Igitur … 931 restitucionibus] PET.CANT., Sum. de sacr., 3.213-4, 231-235

898 exigitur] exigatur L O 900 Item] om. R | admittuntur] committuntur L, committur O 901 suspenditur]suspendatur L O 902 deponitur] deponatur L O 903 Stans] idest perseuerans add. Rs.l. | merum] si estebresus add. Rs.l. 908 De … theologos] item alii casus de usura secundum theologos capitulum xxiii add. L910 rem] tunc L, om. O 911 hec] hic L, hoc O 912 eius] indicis L O 916 commodans] accomodans L Oest] om. R 919 debet] det L O

189

non est usura si respectu dampni quod ille incurreret. Hoc fiat similiter si aliquis 920

promisit abbati decem, post dicit eidem ut expectet et habebit uiginti. Quamdiu in

pendulo est promissio, non est usura. Secus si confirmata sit promissio per plegios uel

pignus uel aliam caucionem, quod habeat inde plenam securitatem. Nam tunc non

credimus carere ueneno usure, si expectet pro maiori summa.

Creditor non multum indigens et accipiens pecuniam quam ei debeo ab usurario ut 925

reddam usuram feneratori, fenerator est secundum canones. Non enim refert an iste

an alius recipiat supra sortem, dummodo ipse sine omni indigencie causa sit quare

recipiat alius. Debita igitur mea recipiam a Iudeo et usurario, licet sciam eum nichil

habere, nisi de usura, quia quouis caro carior est tibi. Sponte autem ab eo oblata non

reciperem, nisi animo restituendi spoliatis, nisi forte in casu qui ponetur infra de 930

restitucionibus.

Si quis rem suam uenalem exponit et emptor non habeat nummos ad manum, set

dicat ego tantum soluam in nundinis illis, et uenditor pro illa empcione magis recepturus

est quam in presenti, usura est manifesta propter expectacionem temporis. Caueant

ergo religiosi ne in hanc speciem usure incidant, cum lanam suam et coria sic uendunt 935

mercatoribus non habentibus denarios ad manum. Item nota quod si maritus est

delapidator et uelit mutuare pecuniam ad usuram, uxor prouida potest sibi de

communi pe-/-cunia per manum alterius mutuare et postea recipere a uiro sortem etfol. 223ra

usuram, dummodo expendat illud in necessitatibus communibus et non in proprios

usus. 940

Si mutuem tibi decem ut des inde pauperibus aliquibus elemosinam et postea reddas

michi sortem, hic aliquid accrescit sorti non michi set alii, estne usura? Credo, si illi

sunt tales quibus ego tenear specialiter benefacere, usura est. Si autem prorsus alieni,

non. Tamen si scandalum propter hoc eueniret, non facerem. Eadem questio et solucio

est si mutuo diuiti decem ea condicione ut ipse det nuptui mulierem pauperem. 945

926 secundum canones] C.14 q.3 c.1 930 infra] JOHN OF KENT, Summa, 2.995-1085

924 ueneno] neno R 926 canones] L, can O R 927 indigencie] L, indigencia O, diligencia R 929 est] esto LO R 930 infra] ita L, infra Ls.l., om. O 933 empcione] expectacione L O 935 speciem] specie L O939 proprios … 940 usus] propriis usibus L O 941 inde] om. R 943 sunt] sint L O 945 decem] centum L O

190

Ea racione qua clericus potest retinere decimam de laico non computatis fructibus in

sortem, credo quod si quis per usuram uel aliter rapuit michi aliquid, si postea petat a

me mutuum, possum ei mutuare ea condicione ut michi ablatum restituat, quia

qualitercumque potero, rem meam recuperabo dummodo sine scandalo. Item si

aliquis tradit pecuniam suam socio ad negociandum ita ut communicet in dampno et 950

in lucro et in expensis, non est usura. Quod si communicet tantum in lucro, quod

semper salua sit ei sors, usura est. Item queritur de ouibus que uulgo dicuntur ferrea

uel immortalia. Puta, aliquis dat centum oues annuatim pro centum solidis, scilicet ut

recipiens tantum reddat pro fructu ouium, ita quod tradenti nullum sit periculum.

Quicquid enim accidat singulis annis centum adquirit saluis semper ouibus. Credo 955

usuram esse, nisi aliquid in se periculum tradens suscipiat, puta belli uel incendii,

nam tunc non est quare enim non poterit locare oues suas sicut equum uel terram.

Secundum theologos si fenerator occultus uocauerit me ad cenam, non debeo

interrogare estne illud uel illud fenebre, set debeo in generali detestari usuram et

persuadere priuatim ut fiat restitucio spoliatis de quorum bonis comedi. Item / nonfol. 223rb 960

licet michi accipere presertim a Christiano ad usuram ob solam corporis mei uel

alterius necessitatem, quia longe incomparabilius teneo diligere animam cuiuslibet

proximi quam uel meum uel alterius corpus. Set licet propter omnem necessitatem

anime mee et cuiuslibet cuius anime teneor prouidere ut si me sciens infirmum,

timeam propter famis uel frigoris inediam uel propter ignoranciam alicuius artis. 965

Unde corpus uel anima sustentetur, <si> timeam in quam accidam uel desperacionem

uel deuocionis carenciam uel quodcumque aliud michi ad salutem necessariam. Item

licet michi ad usuras accipere pro necessitate spirituale ecclesie cuius sum prouisor,

semper tamen teneor pro illo feneratore specialiter orare ut conuertatur. Quo casu

dicit Ieronimus quod melius est quod thesaurus ecclesie exponatur ad usuram quam pauper 970

ad imbrem.

Si fenerator manifestus offerat michi aliquid, bene debeo querere utrum sit de usura,

958 Secundum theologos] locum non inueni, cfr C.11 q.3 c.24 970 Ieronimus] ROB. COUR., De usura (19)

953 oues] om. R 957 enim] ergo L O 961 accipere] recipere L O | ad] om. R 966 accidam] L, accidiam O,om. R 967 deuocionis] desperacionis L O

191

alioquin non recipiam iuxta illud: uide ne furtiuus sit. Daniel contentus communibus

noluit cibis regiis uti. Machabei autem mortem elegerunt, ne comederent carnem

suillam. Sanctus Furseus morpheatus est in facie, quia tunicam a feneratore acceperat 975

licet nesciens esse fenebrem. Launomarus pecuniam feneratorum reiecit retinens solos

quinque denarios quos per reuelacionem cognouit licite adquisitos. Stephanus primus

abbas Cisterciensis fregit in uia pauperibus panem sacerdotis simoniaci, monachis

domi esurientibus.

Tamen secundum Albertum de usurario distinguendum est quod sunt quedam in 980

quibus transfertur dominium quod non possunt repeti, nisi in genere tantum ut

denarii per usuram adquisiti, quia non potest dici iste uel iste denarius usurarius.

Propter confusionem de tali pecunia potest usurarius secundum eum elemosinam

facere, dummodo habeat unde restituat in genere. Si autem sit res in qua non

transfertur dominium, ut / equus, pallium et huiusmodi res singularis quod possitfol. 223va 985

repeti, de illa non potest elemosinam facere nec retinere sua uel ecclesie auctoritate,

set amissoribus restituere quantumcumque habundent.

Meretrix uero secundum magistrum Girardum Puellam, aleator, hystrio, tirocinator,

fictus pauper, athleta conductiuus, mendax predicator, factor et uenditor denariorum,

tunc demum de questu turpi mundam facit elemosinam, cum arte relicta totam 990

resignat ecclesie, et post eius auctoritate distribuit uel in proprios usus conuertit, si

premitur paupertate, uel si occultum est, potest in usus ecclesie conuerti; si patet, non

propter scandalum et prauum exemplum.

<23.> De modo restituendi, scilicet quis tenetur ad restitucionem, et de quibus rebus

De restitucionibus post hec diligenter est inquirendum quis et de quibus rebus et 995

quibus personis et quomodo facienda est restitucio. Videtur igitur nobis in primis

973 uide … sit] Tb. 2:21 | Daniel … 974 uti] Dan. 1:8 974 Machabei … 975 suillam] 2 Mac. 7:1-42975 Sanctus … 979 esurientibus] ROB. COUR., De usura (31) 980 secundum Albertum] cfr Gl. ord. ad C.14q.3 c.1 v. plus quam 988 secundum … Puellam] cfr Gl. ord. ad X 3.30.23 v. licite (Comp. II, 3.17.7)

974 autem] om. R | carnem] om. R 975 a] om. R 976 feneratorum] feneratori R 980 est] om. R 984 sit] fitR | non] om. L O 989 athleta] adlecha L, adleta O | denariorum] L, decimorum O, deciorum R 990 totam]totum R 991 distribuit … 992 potest] om. R 994 De … rebus] quis teneatur restituere et de quibus rebus etquibus personis capitulum xxiiii L

192

quasi generale quod ubicumque possessor non est dominus rei, nec in eo translatum

est dominium, locum habet restitucio. Puta in fraude, usura et dolo et uiolencia et

rapina et quod uulgariter dicitur la gaynum, quando naufragi spoliantur, quod est

detestabile genus rapine et modis omnibus exstirpandus, similiter omnis modus 1000

fraudulentus dampnificandi aliquem iniuste.

Igitur si fuisti iudex corruptus uel falsus testis uel aduocatus uel accusator uel

assessor uel arbiter et per te dampnificatus est aliquis, satisfacere ei teneris de

dampno et de uexacione, tamen in tantum liberatus es in quantum alius de

complicibus tuis de dampno exsoluit. Falsus mensurator, numerator, ponderator, 1005

uenditor falsorum pannorum et expalliatorum tenentur restituere que iniuste

rapuerunt. Similiter consencientes eis, ut textores, precipue fullones, paratores cum

sint cooperatores fraudis, sicut si essent cooperatores false monete, non sunt in statu

saluandorum. Tamen nota quod triplex / est consensus. Est enim consensusfol. 223vb

auctoritatis uel precepti uel defensionis et tunc magis peccat consenciens quam agens. 1010

Unde uersus:

Cum prohibere queas errorem, si tacueris,

Non minus immo magis ipso peccante ligaris.

Et est consensus consilii et auxilii, fauoris uel approbacionis et tunc facientem et

consencientem par pena constringit. Et est consensus simplicitatis uel negligencie uel 1015

dissimulacionis et tunc minus peccat consenciens quam agens. Igitur in hoc ultimo

casu, scilicet cum non impediuit lesurum cum possit uel ledendum non premuniuit,

non uidetur teneri ad restitucionem dampni, set ad satisfaciendum pro negligencia.

Inducat tamen lesorem in quantum poterit ad satisfaciendum leso.

In primis duobus casibus tenetur consenciens satisfacere in solidum, quia quilibet 1020

malefactorum tenetur in solidum. Tamen consulendum est singulis quod suos

complices conueniant et in tantum liberatur quilibet quantum scit alium persoluisse.

997 quasi] quidem L O 998 et1] om. R | et3] om. L O 999 la gaynum] laganum L O 1000 exstirpandus]exstirpandis R 1004 de1] om. L O 1005 numerator] L, nuerator O R 1006 expalliatorum] expoliatores L O1010 magis] tantum L O 1012 tacueris] tuearis R 1014 consensus] dup. L, om. O | et1] om. R | et3] om. R1015 par] pari O R 1016 hoc] om. L O 1017 scilicet] om. L O

193

Nam si uno facto plures dederint dampnum alicui, eligere potest de iure

dampnificatus a quo eorum uelit totum dampnum petere, cessionem faciendo

actionum ei competencium aduersus ceteros socios et dampnificatores. 1025

Si uicium rei a te uendite non detexisti, puta uendidisti equum umbraticum uel alias

uiciosum, teneris restituere ad minus quantum plus habuisti ab emptore quam si

uitium detexisses; et si forte per occultacionem uicii moritur emptor, reus es

homicidii. De uenditoribus carnium, piscium et cuiuslibet potus, distinguimus, quia si

merx ita corrupta est quod uenditor timeat mortem imminere emptori ex uicio, nullo 1030

modo uendere debet. Si autem non sit tale periculum, tamen non usquequaque sana

est, tunc aut tenetur uicium exprimere aut in tantum minus uendere in quantum

deteriorata est res. Quod si sana omnino sit, / uendat quantum iuste uendere potest.fol. 224ra

Secundum canones eciam aduocatus recipiens salarium non secundum quantitatem

laboris debet restituere et physicus et magister scolarum et huiusmodi, quod non 1035

credo ita prescise dicendum, nisi scienter foueat causam iniustam et sic de aliis qui

non credunt consequi finem suum.

Omnes eciam qui uendunt officium pietatis, quod sine munere prestare tenentur,

debent restituere. Hinc patet quod symoniacus tenetur ad restitucionem omnium que

percepit. Unde episcopus symoniacus nullam prebendam uel beneficium potest 1040

conferre, et si conferat scienti, non potest licite tenere.

De hystrionibus secundum Albertum distinguitur, quia quibusdam datur propter

adulacionem, cum bonum quod quis non habet falso alicui attribuunt uel minus

bonum nimis extollunt et hoc quod sic adquiritur debet habere fiscus cum sit scelere

adquisitum, set ex quo fiscus non aufert set permittit non tenentur restituere. Aliis 1045

scilicet maledicis datur ne malum dicant, quo casu bene facit qui dat, male qui accipit,

et tales tenentur restituere, quia dator habet condicionem ob turpem causam contra

1034 canones] C.3 q.7 c.2; C.11 q.3 c.71; C.14 q.5 c.15 1042 secundum Albertum] cfr Gl. ord. ad X 3.30.23v. licite (Comp. II, 3.17.7)

1026 te] quo L O | umbraticum] umbraicum R 1028 detexisses] detexisti L O 1030 merx] merces L O1034 canones] cantorem L O 1036 de] in L O 1041 tenere] retenere Rp.c., retinere L 1043 cum] quia L, quiO | falso] om. L O 1044 adquiritur] adquirunt L O | scelere] incolere L, in celere O 1047 causam] lucrumL, om. O

194

eos, ut dicit lex.

Si infamasti aliquem et bonam eius famam denigrasti, teneris ei restituere in quantum

potes. Si presens est et sciolus, adeas eum ueniam petens; si inscius, da operam ut 1050

ubicumque et coram quibus personis eum infamasti bonum de eo dicas famamque

restituas. Ita iniunctum est Berengario in penitencia ut ubicumque heresim suam

seminauerat illic postmodum contrarium predicaret. Nonne enim si rapuisti michi

bouem teneris restituere? Multo forcius si bonam famam que et facile amittitur et uix

recuperatur. Idem est si scripsisti famosum libellum in alterius detractionem quod 1055

peccatum inter grauissima computatur. Nam secundum leges talis decapitatur. /fol. 224rb

Secundum canones si est scitus et persona ignobilis, flagellatur; si latet et non uult

comparere, indistincte excommunicatur.

Meretrix per meretricium adquisita restituere non tenetur, quia, ut dicit lex, meretrix

turpiter facit quod est meretrix, set non turpiter accipit cum sit meretrix, nisi per dolos 1060

et blandicias fallat aliquem indiscretum. Nam tunc restituere tenetur, alias non. Set

inde elemosinas facere potest, non tamen debet sacerdos publice eius obligaciones

recipere, ne uideatur consentire. Unde non accipies mercedem prostibuli in domo Domini,

immo nec alicuius impenitentis.

Idem quod de meretricibus credimus dicendum de mimis, aleatoribus et deciariis, 1065

scilicet quod restituere non tenentur, nisi fraudem fecerint in ludo; et contradictum:

puta si lusor est deciorum collusorum, si decios mutat uel aliter fraudatur, nam tunc

restituere tenetur; similiter si filiumfamilias uel aliquem minoris etatis allexit ad

ludum. Secus iudicandum est de adquisitis per mechiam quam per meretricium. Nam

adulter adquisita per mechiam ab uxore alicuius tenetur restituere uiro et liberis 1070

quorum substancia est, sic et adultera. Nec est contra quod in pari causa turpitudinis

melior est condicio possidentis, quia nec uir nec uxor potest res communes expendere

1048 lex] Dig. 12.5; Cod. 4.7 1056 leges] Cod. 9.36 1057 canones] C.5 q.1 c.1-3 1059 lex] Dig. 12.5.41063 non … Domini] Dt. 23:18

1048 dicit lex] om. L O 1051 ubicumque] quicumque R | eum] om. L O 1053 contrarium] contraria L O1055 Idem est] item L O 1056 inter] in R 1062 obligaciones] obligacionem L O 1065 mimis] munis R1066 et] om. R 1067 mutat] nutat R | aliter … 1146 secunda] om. O | tunc] aliter L 1068 allexit] alicit Ls.l.

1069 quam … 1070 mechiam] om. R

195

sine consensu alterius, nisi forsan in causas honestas et moderatas.

De inuentis dicimus quod restituenda sunt domino, si potest inueniri; si non,

resignanda sunt in manus ecclesie et per eius consilium diuidenda, quia sicut dicit 1075

Augustinus, si quid inuenisti quod non reddidisti, rapuisti. Qui alienum negat si posset et

tolleret. Deus cor interrogat, non manum. Quam cito igitur animo lucrandi retines,

efficeris fur.

De thesauro inuento credimus secundum ius poli quod debet esse inuentoris, iuxta

illud: simile est regnum celorum thesauro et cetera. Secundum ius fori, si in agro tuo 1080

inueneris, / tuus est; si in alieno, dimidies cum eo cuius est ager. Nunc consuetudofol. 224va

principis ut ubicumque inueniatur, principis est. Credo quod si pauper occulte possit

retinere ne manifestetur, non multum peccat, ex quo ius approbatum non statuit

contrarium.

<24.> De militibus stipendiariis: utrum teneantur ad restitucionem 1085

De militibus stipendiariis et seruientibus, utrum teneantur adquisita restituere

distinguitur utrum sit iustum bellum aut iniustum. Hec igitur in bello sunt

attendenda: condicio pugnantis, quia clericis non licet militare; mens pugnantis, puta

si zelo iusticie uel libidine prede; auctoritas precipientis. Unde uersus:

Condicio, causa, mens, auctor, prouenientes, 1090

Usus bellorum faciunt fore conuenientes,

Nolo silere tamen quidam quod lege cauetur,

In clero positus qui prorsus abesse iubetur,

Bello, bella tamen indicere non prohibetur,

Set quibus ecclesie status incolumis retinetur. 1095

1076 si1 … 1077 manum] C.14 q.5 c.6 1080 simile … cetera] Mt. 13:45 | ius fori] Dig. 41.1.63

1073 forsan] forsitan L 1074 sunt] om. R 1076 quod] et L 1077 igitur] ergo R 1080 et cetera] om. L1081 dimidies] diuides L 1082 ut] est credo quod R 1083 manifestetur] manifestaretur L | approbatum]appropriatum L 1085 utrum … restitucionem] om. L 1087 aut] an L 1088 clericis] clerico L1090 prouenientes] prouenientis R 1091 bellorum] bellatorum La.c., bellantum Lp.c. 1095 incolumis]incolimis L

196

Set notandum quod arma quedam protectionis sunt, ut clipei, lorice, galee et similia.

Istis licet omnibus hominibus uti ob iniuriosam uim repellendam eciam clericis.

Iniuriosam dixi quia est uis licita, ut iudicis et officialis que iure fit, et hac iniuria

repellitur. Arma lesionis sunt spate, lancee, tela, sagitte et similia. Hiis dupliciter uti

accidit: impetendo, defendendo. Impetere armis non licet, nisi iudici et militi et 1100

officiali, set istis licet armis defendere. Licet et omnibus laicis, et eciam clericis

secundum multos, set quocumque modo homicidium fecerint, irregulares fiunt;

secundum alios, non. Possunt tamen hortari ad pugnam et presentes esse in bello

contra inimicos fidei et racione feodorum mittere certum numerum pugnatorum

principi. Iustum est igitur bellum si ista concurrant: 1105

Tunc de iure potest indicens bella iubere,

Si bonus est bellans / et quod decet arma mouere,fol. 224vb

Cum paciens causam reprobam uideatur habere,

Non ea bella querunt dici crudelia uere,

Verbi diuini gladius fidei quoque parma, 1110

Iusticie lorica boni sunt presulis arma,

Cui tamen in bello non interdicitur esse,

Si iubeat maior, si ius, si quando necesse,

Urgeat aut hostes fidei uoluere presse.

Notandum igitur quod miles tenetur obedire principi bellum indicenti, si certum sit 1115

quod non sit contra Deum uel si dubitat an sit contra. Si uero scit quod sit contra,

obedire non debet. Idem intellige de aliis prelatis qui aliquid precipiunt subditis quod

ad eorum pertinet iurisdictionem.

Set queritur an hodie licet Christianis sub infidelibus militare principibus. Respondeo,

utique si legittima obnoxitate eis sint obligati, puta sunt capti ab ipsis in iusto bello uel 1120

tenent ab ipsis terram. Non autem licet eis operas suas locare. Ille autem princeps

1101 Licet … 1103 non] Gl. ord. ad C.23 q.8 d.a. c.1 v. clericis

1096 sunt] om. R | clipei] clipeus L 1097 repellendam] repellendi L 1098 fit] sit R 1101 et1] om. Reciam] omnibus add. L 1109 querunt] queunt R 1115 sit] est L 1116 contra Deum] contradictum Lcontra3] contradictum L

197

potest iuste subditis bellum edicere qui supra se maiorem non habet, ut imperator uel

qui ab illo superiori habet licenciam et potestatem bellum edicendi, et eciam si non

possit ius suum consequi ab eo qui iniuriam intulit conueniendo eum apud maiorem

iudicem. 1125

Si igitur in iniusto bello aliquid rapuisti uel incendium fecisti, redde totum. Si autem

in bello iusto, distingue: quia si rapuisti res principalis persone contra quem bellum

geritur aut consiliariorum eius qui ei in iniusticia sua sunt fautores, restituere forsitan

non teneris. Si autem ecclesiarum uel pauperum uel eorum qui non communicant in

crimine criminoso, restituere omnia teneris. Ipsi autem non deliquerunt ut puniri sic 1130

debeant. Nullorum enim res sic exposite sunt ad diripiendas, nisi eorum qui sunt

hostes ecclesie manifesti, ut scismatici et heretici quibus tamen reddende sunt, si ad

unitatem reuertantur.

Respondeo, quia / tales iure a suis distinguntur rebus per que malis bona gratuitofol. 225ra

tribuuntur, cum miseri eciam ueniam poscunt et suscipiuntur, propterea enim 1135

quedam prouidencia secundum Augustinum: Militantibus sunt stipendia constituta ne

dum preda queritur, predo grassetur. Esto igitur contentus stipendiis tuis. Neminem

concucias, nemini calumpnieris. Unde si milites quos aliquis episcopus tenetur

principi in bello exhibere defectu necessariorum spolient aliquos, prelatus ad

restitucionem tenetur. Item si tantum sunt territi aduersariis et ita terrore eorum non 1140

resistunt set fugiunt, quilibet tenetur in solidum. Nam quacumque ui rem suam per te

amittit, restituere debes. Est enim uis multiplex secundum leges: uis compulsiua, qua

quis compellitur uelle; uis turbatiua, quando quis turbat possessionem alterius; uis

ablatiua, quando quis aufert rem mobilem alterius; uis expulsiua, quando quis

expellitur de re immobili. 1145

Explicit pars secunda

1136 Militantibus … 1137 grassetur] C.23 q.1 c.5 1142 leges] Dig. 4.2

1124 intulit] contulit L 1127 distingue] distinguo R | contra] circa R 1128 sua] eius L | fautores] fauctoresR 1131 diripiendas] diripiendum LR 1132 tamen] non L | si] nisi L 1134 a] om. L | suis] iudice add. Rdistinguntur] destituuntur L | per] pro R 1135 tribuuntur] retribuuntur L 1137 igitur] ergo L 1139 principi]principum L | in] om. L 1140 territi] terrori L R 1141 resistunt] restituunt R 1142 uis2] eciam add. Lcompulsiua] pulsiua L 1143 uis2 … 1144 alterius] om. L 1146 Explicit … secunda] om. L

198

<III>

Incipit pars tercia de modo confessionis

Quoniam obstetricante manu educendus est coluber tortuosus, sollicite sibi debent

prouidere sacerdotes, ne in confessionibus per eorum inprouidenciam aliquod

mortale relinquatur et ne per eorum indiscretam interrogacionem, dum putatur educi, 5

peccatum propter curiositatem ipsius penitentis occasionaliter introducatur. Nec facile

michi uidetur in huiusmodi sacerdotes instruere, quia tot sunt mores quot sunt figure,

et quot capita tot sentencie. Unde modus interrogandi aliquem mouebit uel ad bonum

uel ad malum, qui multos alios non moueret, et econuerso.

Unde unum solum in hoc articulo restat remedium, ut tunc Spiritus sancti gracia 10

inuocetur attencius, ut eo ductore preuio omne noxium deuitetur et omne profectum

eius illustracione qui scrutator est / cordium concedatur. Eius siquidem graciafol. 225rb

concedente interrogaciones ab aliquo sacerdote fieri consuetas tibi scribere, frater

karissime, tum propter peticionum et supplicacionum instanciam tum propter pium

erga animas affectum quem in te considero, non possum de facili denegare, eius 15

tamen interrogaciones aliis imponere non presumens, set propter tuam sollicitudinem

quam circa hoc non modicam sum expertus. Tam magister noster quam alii circa hoc

periti preponit officium <quod> circa hoc exsequatur, id est addent uel minuent, prout

eis uidebitur ad salutem animarum pocius expedire. Et sic ego per eosdem melius

instruar, qui in hac parte magis indigeam edoceri, quam sufficiam te docere. 20

1 Trad. text. <III>: G R

2 Incipit … confessionis] incipit prologus in tractatu de confessione G 3 educendus] eductus G 5 mortale] inpenitentibus add. G | eorum] -dem add. G 6 introducatur] inducatur G 7 in] om. R | sunt2] om. G8 modus] om. R | uel … 9 econuerso] ad bonum qui forsitan alium moueret ad malum R 11 ductore]dominante R | profectum] profuturum G 12 eius] illius R 13 concedente] concedante R 14 karissime]studeas add. G | pium] tuum G 15 possum] tibi add. G 16 imponere] tamen G | propter] per G 17 hoc1]hos R | modicam] modica R | Tam] cum tamen G | circa2] super G | hoc2] hec R, experti add. G18 preponit] prepositoris G | circa hoc] om. G | exsequatur] exequantur G | addent] addant G | minuent]mutent aut minuant G 19 uidebitur] uidetur G | pocius] expedite R | Et … 20 docere] om. R

199

Incipit penitencialis

Penitencium omnium fere consuetudo est suum confessorem primitus salutare,

quibus prudens sacerdos uultu applaudenti et blandis uerbis et gaudenti animo

respondeat: Bene ueneris frater. Vel ita dicens pocius: Deus det tibi graciam

reconciliandi te ei et in amore eius de cetero uiuendi et uoluntatem suam per omnia 25

faciendi.

PENITENS: Domine uenio ad te consilium petiturus.

SACERDOS: Consilium meum est ut uoluntarie, prouide, nude, uere et integre

studeas Domino Deo omnipotenti confiteri, ut deuotum animum tuum Deus

respiciens, cor tuum contritum et humiliatum non despiciens te misericorditer 30

respiciat et indulgeat tibi quod peccasti. Tamen super hiis omnibus consultus et super

hiis omnibus faciendis firmum habens propositum debueras huc uenisse et auxilium

et consilium a Deo et a me petere, ut perfecte possis de uillicacione tocius uite tue

reddere racionem et Deo satisfacere de peccatis tuis.

PENITENS: Verum est, domine, et deuote hoc imploro. 35

SACERDOS: Primo uide quod firmiter fidem sancte ecclesie et integre teneas qua

illumineris et quod de Dei misericordia certissime speras <et> plenissime confidas ut

in paciendis conforteris, et / Deum super omnia diligas et proximum sicut te ipsum, utfol. 225va

sic in agendis perfectius informeris.

PENITENS: Quantum in me est, domine, ad hec omnia per Dei graciam me parabo. 40

SACERDOS: Vide eciam ut uniuersaliter doleas et perfecte de peccatis, et quia

patrem tuum celestem pro peccato et pro uoluntate tua adimplenda et eciam pro

uoluntate diaboli dereliquisti, et eum multociens offendisti.

PENITENS: Doleo quantum possum.

SACERDOS: Habes propositum ei satisfaciendi et non relabendi? 45

21 Incipit penitencialis] om. G 22 est] habet G 23 prudens] om. R | applaudenti] appaludens R | et1] om.R | et2] om. R 24 respondeat] respondet G | dicens] om. G 25 te] om. G | uoluntatem suam] suumbeneplacitum G 28 prouide nude] prouideas tibi unde R | et] om. G 29 Deo omnipotenti] om. G 30 tuum]om. G | te] om. G 31 tibi] om. G 32 omnibus] om. G 33 et1 … et2] om. G | perfecte] pocius G | tue]domino add. G 34 Deo] ei G | tuis] om. G 35 deuote] dulciter R 36 sancte] om. G 37 certissime speras]om. G 38 in] om. G | conforteris] confitearis R | ut … 41 Sacerdos] om. R 41 eciam ut] quod R | peccatis]uestris add. R | quia] quod R 42 pro2] om. R | adimplenda] implenda G 43 dereliquisti] reliquisti G45 relabendi] reuertendi iterum ad peccatum G

200

PENITENS: Habeo, domine.

SACERDOS: Poterit tibi proficere oris confessio que alias non ualeret.

Item SACERDOS: Frater, non erubescas michi omnia aperte et distincte dicere, quia

nulla michi hodie dices quin multa maiora, a multis te melioribus, ut puto, et Deo

carioribus, aliquando forte audierim, et de me ipso aliquando tanta sensi quod 50

fragilitatem humanam nullatenus possum ignorare. Preterea si uere penites, iam non

habes illud peccatum quod habuisti. Quod autem non erubuisti facere, non debes

erubescere dicere, non facere set fecisse. Tanto magis enim gaudent angeli atque

sancti, et nos eciam sacerdotes, quanto de profundiori carcere diaboli et maioribus et

forcioribus eius uinculis peccatorem conspicimus euasisse. Et eciam est tibi maximus 55

honor tantam probitatem et animi uirtutem, tamen a misericordia Dei datam,

confiteri. Si uero non potes non erubescere, hoc bonum est, quia pars erit penitencie

tue, id est satisfactionis. Item ne timeas, quia Deo, non homini, scias te dicere que dicis

hic, et non solum michi hic loco eius sedenti. Dico autem tibi nec potes, nec debes,

aliquid celare in confessione, quia si sic, non esset uera neque liberans, set pocius te 60

obligaret. De me autem confidere debes, et potes, quia nouit Deus quod prius me

permitterem decollari, quam scienter signo uel dicto te de confessione tua detegerem,

etsi patrem meum occideres, maxime cum sciam te non michi, set ut Deo principaliter

confiteri. Dei autem secretum nullus sane mentis presumat reuelare. Penitenciam uero

tam dif-/-ficilem non iniungam, quicquid feceris, quin possis eam perficere per Deifol. 225vb 65

graciam.

PENITENS: Hec omnia scio.

SACERDOS: Dicas ergo que reminisci poteris, et de aliis, quantum Dominus michi

commiserit, te iuuabo.

47 Sacerdos … 48 Item] om. R 48 Frater] om. R | michi] om. R | aperte] nude G 49 dices] dixeris G50 aliquando forte] om. G | ipso] eciam G 51 humanam] om. G | nullatenus] alterius G | penites] penitenses G 52 quod] set G 53 enim] om. R 54 nos] om. G | profundiori] profundiorum R | et3] om. R55 forcioribus] que add. R | peccatorem] om. R | conspicimus] aliquem add. R | eciam] om. G | maximus]om. G 56 datam] om. G 57 erubescere] et add. R 58 non homini] om. G | dicis] dices G 59 tibi] om. Gnec1] non G 60 celare] maxime add. G | si sic] aliter G | neque] nec te G | liberans] liberaret G | set] sicadd. G | te] om. G 61 autem] sic add. G | debes et] om. R 62 scienter] om. R 63 etsi … 64 reuelare] sipatrem occidisses G | te] michi add. R 64 uero] om. G 65 eam] eciam G 67 omnia] bene add. G68 Dicas] dic G | que] quod G | Dominus] deus G 69 commiserit] concesserit G | iuuabo] iudicabo G

201

Tunc notet sacerdos que dixerit et que sibi relinquerit inquirenda, et permittendus est 70

ut proprio motu dicat que proposuerat confiteri.

De luxuria

Quamuis peccatum luxurie ultimum sit in ordine septem mortalium, tamen de illo

primitus expediendum est, quia generalius et in pluribus inuenitur, et in principio est

feruencior uoluntas confitentis, et assecuratur animus pro predicta et aliarum 75

interrogacionum tedio non affectus. Hoc igitur genus peccati periculosum est ad

interrogandum et erubescibile ad dicendum. Consulo tamen, si sit mulier que

confitetur, et maxime si iuuenis, et ipse sacerdos timeat ne per audita uerba carnalia

sui uel illius fragilis sensualitas moueatur, interrogaciones de auaricia uel aliis

peccatis intermisceat. Vel de alio integre interroget, ut per loquendi assuefactionem 80

utriusque animo melius confirmato, procedat securius ulterius ad uicia luxurie

inquirenda, de qua sepedictus sacerdos solet inquirere.

Circa luxuriam queritur cum quot coniugatis ante matrimonium, cum quot post

matrimonium, habuerit rem; similiter cum quot solutis ante matrimonium, cum quot

post; utrum aliquot fuerint de genere uel de cognacione interesse; utrum de cognatis 85

uel aliqui de genere suo; utrum ante matrimonium uel post; utrum aliquot

deflorauerit; utrum interuenerat compaternitas uel filiacio; utrum cum natis patrinis

uel filiolis patrinis; utrum cum uenalibus meretricibus, ubi sunt plurima pericula;

utrum in sacro tempore uel in sacro loco; utrum in tempore menstruorum; utrum cum

religiosis; utrum in puerperie ante purificacionem; utrum modo indebito 90

extraordinario, / ut contra naturam brutaliter; utrum per molliciem, set latenter, ut infol. 226ra

tractu patet; utrum in dormiendo cum alia re quam cum muliere; utrum uicio

sodomitico uel cum brutis.

91 ut2 … 92 patet] cfr. JOHN OF KENT, Summa, 3.254-77

70 que sibi] om. G | et2 … 71 confiteri] om. G 73 Quamuis] de luxuria praem. G | de … 74 est1] predictussacerdos consueuit de illo se primitus expedire G 74 et1] om. G | est2] ei add. G 75 pro] per G 76 igitur]om. G 77 interrogandum] inquirendum G | si] quod G 78 sacerdos] om. G | carnalia] om. G 80 peccatis]predictis add. G | loquendi … 81 utriusque] perloquendi assuecionem utriusque G 81 uicia] uilia G 82 de … inquirere] om. R 83 Circa … 93 brutis] om. G 90 purificacionem] perurificacionem R

202

Interrogaciones de adulterio et fornicacione

<SACERDOS:> Frater, es uxoratus? 95

PENITENS: Sum, domine.

SACERDOS: Cognouisti alias antequam uxorem duceres?

PENITENS: Sic.

SACERDOS: Quot coniugatas et quot solutas?

PENITENS: Non recolo numerum. 100

SACERDOS: Tam de hoc quam de aliis precogitatus et certus debueras huc uenisse.

PENITENS: Verum est, domine. Set dum iuuenis eram, nullam euitabam, et eciam

paruipendebam, quia non putabam esse mortale solutus cum soluta.

SACERDOS: Male decipiebaris, set ex quo nescis numerum, saltem estima.

Queratur eciam quanto tempore et cum qualibet peccauit, et eciam quot uicibus, si 105

memor esset.

Similiter querendum est quot in matrimonio, quot in uiduitate et quot coniugatas et

quot solutas cognouerit. Et ostendendum est quod grauiter peccat ante matrimonium

et quam malum sit frangere fidem matrimonii et sacramentum. Est ergo ibi

sacrilegium et furtum sui ipsius, quod furatus est uxori, et fraus est, et multa alia que 110

ibi sunt. Nec ista dicenda sunt ut accusando uel eum arguendo et increpando set

benigne laquei magnitudinem et profunditatem peccati a quo liberauit eum Dominus

ostendendo, et ut de talibus de cetero caueat premonendo generaliter.

Quam cito aliquod peccatum dixerit penitens, dicat SACERDOS: Indulgeat tibi Deus.

Dicat postea ut cum omnia extraxerit, tunc forte tucius potest peccatorum uilitatem et 115

magnitudinem declarare, non solum ad cauendum in futuro, set eciam ad terrorem et

pudorem et dolorem excitandum, et ut uideat grauem penitenciam sibi iniungendam,

94 Interrogaciones … fornicacione] om. G 96 domine] om. R 97 Sacerdos] om. G | uxorem] eam G 101 et]om. R 102 domine] om. R | dum … nullam] tunc iuuenis eram nec aliquam G | et … 103 paruipendebam]om. R 103 esse] peccatum add. G | solutus] soluti G 104 Sacerdos] siue add. R | numerum] om. G105 Queratur … 106 esset] om. G 107 querendum] inquirendum G | est] om. G | et1] om G | et2] om. G108 est … matrimonium] multo grauius quam ante G 109 Est … ibi] et ibi esse G 110 quod] quem G | frausest] fraudem G 111 ut] om. R | uel eum] set R | set] et R 112 laquei] laqueos et G | quo] qua GDominus] deus G 113 ostendendo] om. R | ut de] a G | premonendo] et add. G 115 ut] et G R | forte] om.G | potest] est G | uilitatem] recapitulando add. G 116 declarare] ostentare G | eciam] om. R117 grauem … sibi] sibi grauem penitenciam si posset sufficere G | iniungendam] iniungi deberi R

203

et ut libencius suscipiat iniunctam, et non sic ut a peccatis que adhuc confitenda sunt

terreatur set timor pocius de eis incuciatur, et iuxta finem / confessionis recolligat defol. 226rb

maioribus quibus potest reminisci. Unde, etsi hec peccata inscripta subiungantur 120

propter prolixitatem euitandam et eorum maiorem euidenciam, tamen in confessione

in finem ab eis, que recolligere audita potuerint, obseruentur.

De incestu et de genere

Item habito numero uel uere estimato querat SACERDOS: Erat aliqua illarum de

eadem cognacione, scilicet de eodem genere? 125

PENITENS: Sic.

SACERDOS: In quo gradu? Et quamdiu fuisti in peccato? Item: Fuerat aliqua illarum

cognita ab aliquo de tuo genere?

PENITENS: Sic.

SACERDOS: Sciebas hoc in quo gradu tibi contingebat? Item SACERDOS: Erat aliqua 130

illarum de tuo genere uel de cognacione uxoris tue?

PENITENS: Ita, de genere uxoris.

SACERDOS: In quo gradu?

PENITENS: In quarto uel infra.

SACERDOS: Fuerit ante matrimonium contractum uel post? 135

PENITENS: Ante.

SACERDOS: Non es in uero matrimonio: non enim est uxor tua quam tu habes pro

uxore.

PENITENS: Quid faciam?

SACERDOS: Hanc poteris dimittere, si possis dictum concubitum probare coram 140

episcopo. Celebrabitur diuorcium et concedetur utrique alii coniungi.

PENITENS: Non possum, quia nemo scit nisi ego.

118 non … ut2] om. G | sunt] ne add. G 119 set … 120 reminisci] om. G 120 Unde … 122 obseruentur] om.R 123 De … genere] om. G 124 Item] om R | numero] nature add. G | estimato] extima G (ue Gs.l.)Erat … illarum] erant aliquam eorum G 127 quo] quoto G | fuisti … 130 contingebat] om. G | Item] si add.R 130 sacerdos] om. R 131 illarum] om. R | de2] om. R 133 quo] quoto G 135 Fuerit] fuit hoc G | uelpost] om. G 136 Ante] ita G 137 Sacerdos] om. G, si fuerit ante add. R | non enim] nec G | tu] om. G139 Quid] ergo add. G 140 poteris] oportet R | dictum concubitum] predictum cubitum R 141 coniungi]coniugi R 142 nemo] nullus G

204

SACERDOS: Habeas ergo hanc tanquam sororem uel consanguineam uel cognatam,

non tanquam uxorem, id est non cognoscas eam, quia ita precepit dominus papa in

decretali. 145

PENITENS: Nec ego nec ipsa possumus continere.

SACERDOS: Scias quod soror tua est, si cum sorore tua prius effectus es una caro uel

cognata.

PENITENS: Si tamen cognata, potero eam cognoscere?

SACERDOS: Non sine mortali peccato. 150

PENITENS: Quid ergo faciam?

SACERDOS: Finge uel fac peregrinacionem et uiue alibi sine illa.

PENITENS: Si uendam que habeo, potero in longinquis regionibus aliam ducere et

in uero matrimonio uiuere et mori?

SACERDOS: De hoc pete licenciam a tuo episcopo. Item: Post contractum 155

matrimonium cognouisti aliquam eius cognatam in gradu dispensabili?

PENITENS: Ita.

SACERDOS: Vade ultra mare uel in Albigenses; et si non potes, fac hic penitenciam

grauem et de cetero debitum non exigas, set reddas et hoc cum timore et dolore.

Similiter mulieri dicendum, si cognatus mariti eam cognouerit. 160

De defloracione uirginum /fol. 226va

SACERDOS: Erat aliqua illarum uirgo quam defloraueris?

PENITENS: Ita.

SACERDOS: Si posses, deberes eam ducere in uxorem uel alii maritare de tuo. Vel si

posses eam, si indigeret, sustentare uel ingressum ei religionis procurare uel, si 165

mortua est, aliam pauperem uirginem loco suo maritare. Et ad tot aliquid horum

145 decretali] cfr Comp. I, 4.13.2

143 ergo hanc] om. G | consanguineam uel] om. R 144 non1 … uxorem] om. G | ita … papa] quia precipiturG 146 possumus] possemus G 147 si … 148 cognata] sed cum sorore tua post efficeris una caro uel cognatasicut cognata G 149 Si … eam] potero aliam G 150 peccato] om. G 152 uel fac] om. G 153 regionibus]om. R 154 uiuere] uiue R 155 licenciam] om. R | a] ab G | Item] si add. G 157 Penitens … 158 Sacerdos]om. G 158 uel … Albigenses] om. R | et … non] uel si G 159 grauem] om. G | exigas] cogas G160 dicendum] est add. G 161 De … uirginum] om. G 162 Sacerdos] om. R, item praem. G | quamdefloraueris] om. R 164 Sacerdos] om. G | si … 165 indigeret] usque dum possis hec eam corruptam siindigeat G 166 est] loco illius add. G | loco suo] om. G | Et … 167 et] om. R

205

teneris facere quot deflorasti, et nichilominus penitenciam agere ut de simplici

fornicacione.

PENITENS: Non possum hoc totum facere.

SACERDOS: Fac quod potes, de reliquo pete ueniam. 170

SACERDOS: Erat aliqua illarum monialis?

PENITENS: Ita

SACERDOS: Hoc grauissimum est peccatum et sacrilegium et uiolacio templi Dei et

sponse Christi.

Similiter mulieri dicendum est. Habito numero horum querat SACERDOS: Eratne 175

aliquis ordinatus uel religiosus? Et in quo ordine?

De prestibulariis

Si quis autem ad tales accesserit, maxime ignotis, tutum est ei infligere penitenciam

sicut pro adulterio.

Item SACERDOS: Eratne aliqua illarum prostans et publica, quod dicitur demestre uel 180

de uie?

PENITENS: Ita, pluries.

SACERDOS: Forte erant coniugate uel sorores adinuicem uel a cognatis tuis cognite

uel a leprosis uel religionem erant egresse?

PENITENS: Nescio. 185

SACERDOS: Dubitare debes et timere et considerare quantum sit cum talibus

periculum agere, tam anime quam corporis.

Item SACERDOS: Fuerat aliqua illarum commater uel filiola matris tue uel filiola

patrui?

167 agere ut] facere si sit G 169 possum] possim G 170 potes] et add. G | reliquo] a deo add. G 172 Ita … 173 Sacerdos] erat utique G 173 peccatum] om. G 175 Similiter … querat] om. R | Sacerdos … 176 ordine]post adulterio R 176 ordine] diaconi uel alcius modi et cetera add. G 177 De … 179 adulterio] om. G180 sacerdos] om. R | Eratne] erat G | prostans] om. R | quod … 181 uie] id est de uia G 182 pluries]plures G 183 adinuicem] inuicem G 184 religionem] religiose R | erant] om. G 187 agere] contrahi G188 Item] om. G | sacerdos] om. R | illarum … 189 patrui] commater tua uel patris filia patrini uel filiola uelmatrina G

206

Similiter uerbis competentibus interrogandum est mulieribus. 190

De coniunctione spirituali

Inquirendum est eciam utrum cum patre spirituali, id est cum sacerdote suo, habuit

rem. Tamen si prius audierit aliquem prenominatorum esse sacerdotem, illud ibi

queratur, et si sic, tunc grauissima multis racionibus iniungenda est sibi penitencia.

De loco et tempore 195

SACERDOS: Contigit tibi aliquid de predictis in loco sacro?

PENITENS: Eciam, domine.

SACERDOS: In quo?

PENITENS: In cimiterio, ecclesia, claustro.

SACERDOS: Bonum esset ut / cum talem locum intrares, si memor esses, tam de hocfol. 226vb 200

quam de aliis peccatis, etsi non ore saltem corde, ueniam implorares.

Dicunt eciam quidam ecclesiam dedicandam, uel cimiterium reconciliandum esse post

hoc peccatum; si occultum est, a sacerdote, si publicum, ab episcopo.

Item SACERDOS: Contingitne tibi tale peccatum in tempore indebito?

PENITENS: Ita. 205

SACERDOS: Quo tempore? Diebus sabbati, uigiliis apostolorum uel aliis uigiliis, et

ieiuniis quatuor temporum et quadragesime, maxime tempore passionis?

PENITENS: Non aduertebam. Mulier dicit non possumus nostris coniugibus

prohibere.

SACERDOS: Deberes monere et rogare ut pro reuerencia temporis abstineat. Si non 210

202 Dicunt … quidam] ROB. FLAM., Lib. poen., 4.7 (§227)

190 Similiter … 192 utrum] similia supradictis uerbis mulieribus eis competentibus sunt querenda et eciam G192 habuit … 193 prius] si post G 193 prenominatorum] premonstratorum R | esse … 194 sic] fuissesacerdotem quia G 194 sibi] om. G 195 De … tempore] om. G 196 Sacerdos] om. R | tibi … predictis]tibine tale quid R 198 In] om. G 199 Penitens In] om. R | ecclesia] uel eciam in G 200 Bonum esset]deberes R 201 saltem] tamen R | implorares] implorare R 202 quidam … cimiterium] ecclesiam dedicatumet cimiterium dedicatum G 203 publicum] est add. G 204 Item … indebito] sacerdos contigit tibi hocpeccatum tempore non debito G | sacerdos] om. R 206 tempore] fuit hoc add. G | uel] et G 207 temporepassionis] postquam tempus passionis introiuit G 208 Non … 209 prohibere] mulier dicit non possumusprohibere uiris nostris R 210 Deberes] debes G

207

potest sine sui periculo, minoratur tua culpa. Si possit et nolit, augmentatur sua culpa

et dicas ei quod caueat sibi.

De coitu cum menstruatis

SACERDOS: Aliquo tempore hoc fecisti indebito?

PENITENS MULIER: Quo tempore? 215

SACERDOS: Vos mulieres scitis melius quam uiri tempus illud in quo est maxime

abstinendum.

Hoc dicitur pro tempore menstruorum, quia erubescunt cum aperte interrogatur.

MULIER: Quid est illud tempus, domine?

SACERDOS: Bene scitis quod aliquando infirmantur mulieres, et infirmitatem illam 220

nolunt sciri a uiris suis, et ideo tunc magis debent abstinere ne mariti percipiant.

PENITENS MULIER dicit, maxime si sit domigerosa: Domine, que est illa infirmitas?

SACERDOS: Non bene noui quem, set a quibusdam uocatur flores.

PENITENS MULIER: Domine, ut quid de tam uili re loquaris?

SACERDOS: Quia prohibitum est in lege ne tunc accedat uir. Et tunc tam patri quam 225

matri periculum est de infirmitate contrahenda, que uocatur elefancia. Et est periculum

puero tunc genito ne uel in uentre pereat uel, si nascatur, morbum contrahat caducum

uel lepram uel gibbositatem uel contractionem uel / aliquid tale, ita quod malles eumfol. 227ra

mortuum quam uiuum, quia potest esse obprobrium toti cognacioni.

PENITENS MULIER: Domine, bonum est tunc continere et sepe hoc contigit michi. 230

PENITENS MULIER: Tunc uiri nostri magis instant nobis; nec audemus eis reuelare.

SACERDOS: Finge infirmitatem lateris uel capitis et, si nolit, dicas ei si accedat

grauiter eum peccaturum esse. Et si esset benignus et de te priuatus, posses rei

225 lege] D.5 c.4

211 culpa2 … 212 dicas] et dicat G 212 sibi] om. R 213 De … menstruatis] om. G 214 Sacerdos] om. RAliquo] alio G | hoc] om. R 215 Penitens] om. G | Quo tempore] quo R 216 Sacerdos] om. G | uiri] nosG | in] om. R 218 Hoc … interrogatur] om. G 219 Quid] quod G 220 aliquando] quandoque G 221 sciri]eciam add. Gs.l. | uiris suis] maritis G | debent] deberent G | mariti] ipsi R | percipiant] perciperent G222 Penitens] om. G | dicit] om. G | domigerosa] id est domgerosa add. G 223 quem] om. G224 Penitens] om. G | mulier] om. R | ut] ad G | loquaris] loqueris G 225 uir] om. R 226 est2 … 227genito] periculum pueri tunc generati G 227 si … 228 tale] nascatur caducus leprosus gibbosus uel huiusmodiG 230 Penitens] om. G | mulier Domine] om. R 231 penitens] om. G | magis] om. G | eis] om. G232 dicas … 233 esse] dimittere dicas ei grauiter peccaturum G 233 esset] tam add. G | te] tam add. G | rei]ei G

208

ueritatem timore periculi reuelare. Set tunc temporis quantum potes abstine, et finge

quicquid uerius poteris allegare ut desistat. 235

SACERDOS: Ante purificacionem contigit tibi tale quid?

MULIER: Ita.

SACERDOS:. Sic caue, quia consimilis casus in aliquibus potest contigere, ut in

extinctione seminis, et infirmitate parentum, et prohibicione legisque transgressione.

SACERDOS: Contigit hoc modo indebito? 240

PENITENS: Quomodo?

<SACERDOS:> Prauo modo?

PENITENS: Nescio de quomodo loqueris.

SACERDOS: Contigit hoc eo modo quo solet et debet fieri, et quomodo natura exigit?

PENITENS: Immo, domine, alio modo. 245

SACERDOS: Quo?

<PENITENS:> Alia parte qua non debet fieri.

SACERDOS: Hoc est brutale peccatum et contra naturam, et eciam cum uxore non

est matrimonium hoc, set quasi lupanar.

SACERDOS: Contigit tibi hoc cum alia quam cum uxore? 250

PENITENS: Ita, domine.

SACERDOS: Tanto grauius est peccatum, et precipio tibi hunc modum prohibeas

omnino si aliter nolit facere.

SACERDOS: Contigit tibi tale quid dormiendo per sompnum de marito uel uxore

absente uel alio? 255

PENITENS: Non.

SACERDOS: Non erubescas hoc dicere, quia tale quid contigit uiris sanctis.

PENITENS: Non ergo mirum si michi contigerit.

SACERDOS: Dic ergo.

PENITENS: Dico quod sic. 260

Hoc dicitur pro peccato molliciei, quod similiter occulte est interrogandum cum

234 Set … abstine] et tunc quantum potes obnitere G 236 sacerdos … 319 negauerit] om. R

209

timore curiositatis.

SACERDOS: Contigit tibi consimile uigilando pro desiderio mariti uel alterius uel

uxoris?

PENITENS: Non. 265

SACERDOS: Scio quod nemo cogitaciones et uoluntates suas potest cohibere.

Hoc dicitur pro peccato molliciei, similiter si predicto modo non potest elici.

PENITENS: Non sum ita calide nature.

SACERDOS: Nullus est tam frigide nature qui aliquociens non temptetur uel per

cogitacionem uel auditum uel tactum uel oculum uel allocucionem deprope, per 270

aspectum rei formose uel placentis, uel aliarum rerum simul coeuncium naturaliter.

Nec dico quod hec omnia dicenda sint nisi necesse uiderit sacerdos, et Spiritus sanctus

dictauerit, set tantum que uiderit expedire.

PENITENS: Aliquando temptatus fui et cogitaui de huiusmodi.

SACERDOS: Sensisti motum carnis? 275

PENITENS: Quem motum?

SACERDOS: Calefactionem et delectacionem?

Si dicat non, taceat SACERDOS; si sic, dicat: Quid tunc faciebas?

<PENITENS:> Nichil, set paciebar.

SACERDOS: Quando paciebaris, contigit tibi aliquid quod non deberet uel non 280

deceret?

PENITENS: Non.

Taceat SACERDOS. Si sic: Quid ad hoc ut accideret faciebas?

Quomodocumque hoc acciderit uigilando ostendat.

SACERDOS: Peccatum molliciei uincit adulterium et homicidium; facere 285

monstruosum est.

Et grauis penitencia iniungenda est.

Item SACERDOS eis qui sunt eiusmodi: Contigit tibi cum alia re hoc quam cum

284 uigilando] uigigilando G 285 molliciei] mollicei G | uincit] uincere Ga.c. 288 tibi] aliquid add. Ga.c.

210

muliere?

Si dicat non, taceat sacerdos; si sic, SACERDOS: Cum qua? 290

<Si cum rebus> non pollutis, sic: Contigit hoc quando eras cum muliere uel in

muliere?

PENITENS: Quomodo?

SACERDOS: Cognouisti aliquam quam timeres inpregnare uel que idem timeret?

PENITENS: Non. 295

Taceat SACERDOS. Si sic, dicat: Permittebat tibi omnino facere uoluntatem tuam?

Hoc dicitur pro effusione extra, altero se sponte subtrahente. Et reuera, nisi esset

periculum non confitendi, hec non essent interroganda, nisi sponte et per se

dicerentur. Set unusquisque Deo duce sciat quid interrogandum et quid tacendum.

Item SACERDOS: Concupisti plures alias a predictis tibi placentes uel pro 300

pulcritudine male aspiciendo uel alia re uel quia de eis cogitabas?

PENITENS: Plures quam cognoscam.

SACERDOS: Cognouisses libenter, si locum et oportunitatem haberes et ipsa uellet?

PENITENS: Ita.

SACERDOS: Scias te mortaliter tociens peccasse. Unde memento ut de cetero ab 305

huiusmodi caueas.

Quomodo autem cauendum sit et quid faciendum sit, ut caueat peccata ad que magis

pronus uidebitur uel se magis pronum confitebitur, dicendum est in fine.

De gula

SACERDOS: Es assuetus excedere in cibo et potu? 310

PENITENS: Non.

SACERDOS: Vix est aliquis qui aliquando non capiat ultra quod ei sufficeret uel

ultra quod deberet.

PENITENS: Bene potest esse.

SACERDOS: Non quero de potencia set utrum tale quid tibi contigit. 315

PENITENS: Forte sic.

291 pollutis] uero add. G 296 dicat] facit G 310 Sacerdos] de gula sic praem. G 313 quod] quam de G

211

<SACERDOS:> Ad quid apponis ibi forte, nonne scis aut saltem credis esse?

PENITENS: Ita, scio.

Et similis inductio fiat ubi negauerit.

De ebrietate 320

SACERDOS: Contigit tibi aliquando esse ebrium?

PENITENS: Non.

SACERDOS: Nonne multum exilaratus aliquando fuisti post uinum, et ad uerba

stulta et mala pronus, et eis facundus?

PENITENS: Ita. 325

SACERDOS: Nunquid mane sensisti dolorem capitis aut uinositatem anelitus tui et

quasi malefactionem aut linguam precipitem aut torporem corporis aut

sompnolenciam aut, quando incipiebas dormire, cerebris uertiginem?

PENITENS: Sic.

SACERDOS: Ergo nimis sumpseras. 330

PENITENS: Ita est.

De gula et uomitu

SACERDOS: Contigitne tibi aliquando uomitus, quod gallice dicitur malauquer?

PENITENS: Ita.

SACERDOS: Putas hoc fuisse ex nimietate potandi uel comedendi uel alia de causa? 335

Item SACERDOS: Contigitne tibi die Pasche, uel die qua communicaueras?

PENITENS: Ita.

SACERDOS: Quo loco? /fol. 227va

PENITENS: Non auerti ubi primo occurit michi.

SACERDOS: Debueras in uase recepisse et totum cum uase uel sine uase 340

320 De ebrietate] om. G 323 et] om. G 324 eis] om. G 326 mane … dolorem] pluries dolores sensisti G327 malefactionem] madefactionem G | precipitem … corporis] titubantem aut pedes aut corporem G328 uertiginem] et quasi concius domus add. G 330 Sacerdos … sumpseras] patet ergo quod nimis biberas G332 De … uomitu] om. G 333 Sacerdos] om. R | Contigitne] contigit G | quod … malauquer] om. G335 Putas … fuisse] putasne hoc esse G | potandi … comedendi] om. R | alia de] aliqua alia R 336 Item] om.G | sacerdos] om. R | Contigitne] contigit hoc G 339 auerti] aduerto R | michi] om. G

212

combussisse igni et eciam loturam uasi post, non pro periculo sacramenti set pro

reuerentia eiusdem.

PENITENS: Ita facerem et docerem alios si sciuissem.

SACERDOS: Et in cibis similiter excessisti?

PENITENS: Non. 345

SACERDOS: Sensisti grauari stomacum uel inflari uel mane anelitum facere fetorem?

PENITENS: Ita.

SACERDOS: Patet ergo nimietas.

SACERDOS: Comedis libenter mane et ante horam debitam aut forte die dominica

ante missam? 350

PENITENS: Sic.

SACERDOS: Ne facias gulam tuam et uentrem tibi deum uel dominum, et ne facias

ei tantam obedienciam, quia fere permisit Deus aliquando aliquem occasum esse

solum hac transgressione, eciam filium regis qui in lege uocatur Ionathas, et uix

liberatus est prece tocius populi, et illa die noluit Deus respondere regi Israel hac de 355

causa.

PENITENS: Bonum est ergo horam expectare.

SACERDOS: Queris libenter deliciosa fercula et cibaria, et in eis delectaris multum?

PENITENS: Ita.

SACERDOS: Valde arguuntur tales in lege et legimus tales occisos Dei permissione, 360

ut filios Hely.

SACERDOS: Comedis nimis et hoc sepe?

PENITENS: Ita.

SACERDOS: Hec fuit una de causis quibus Sodomite deciderent in peccatum contra

naturam et multi in luxuriam. 365

354 filium … 356 causa] 1 Reg. 14 360 legimus … 361 Hely] 1 Reg. 12 364 Sodomite … 365 naturam] Esd.16:49

341 eciam] om. R | uasi] uesis G, uasis R | pro1] om. G 343 si sciuissem] de cetero G 344 Sacerdos] om.G | similiter] om. G 346 inflari] instari G | anelitum facere] haneliter facere G 347 Penitens … 349 mane]om. R 349 debitam] comedisti add. R | dominica] dominico R 352 tuam et] uel R | tibi … 353 quia] deumet dominum nec ei facias tantam obedienciam G 353 occasum] occisum G 354 eciam] et G 358 fercula et]om. G 360 legimus] aliquos G 361 ut] scilicet G 364 Sacerdos] om. G | deciderent] ceciderunt G

213

SACERDOS: Comedis ardenter?

PENITENS: Ita.

SACERDOS: Legimus propter hoc aliquem perdidisse primogenituram suam, id est

dignitatem et dominium, ut Esau.

Item SACERDOS: Facis magnum apparatum in salsis et preparacione ciborum cum 370

studio et delectacione? Et quandoque es iratus quando non optime preparantur et

saporose?

PENITENS: Sic est.

SACERDOS: Inde arguit Deus diuitem quem audire potuisti refrigeracionem per

Lazarum postulasse. /fol. 227vb 375

Hec quinque uicia hoc uersu intelliguntur:

Prepropere, laute, nimis, ardenter, studiose.

De malis que oriuntur ex luxuria et gulositate

Benigne ostendentur mala que ex luxuria et ebrietate secuntur, ut uomitus, de quo

supra, homicidia, odia, furta, blasphemie, periuria et cetera que ex his secuntur. Et 380

ostendendum est ab hiis esse abstinendum, et ad hoc exhortandus est penitens.

SACERDOS: Bibis in die ieiunii ante prandium?

PENITENS: Ita.

SACERDOS: Quare?

PENITENS: Laboro in uineis uel alibi. 385

SACERDOS: Si potes abstinere <et> nec abstines, soluis ieiunium. Si non potes, bibas

quam minus tibi putas sufficere, timeas et uerearis et ores Deum ne amittes meritum

369 Esau] Gn. 25 374 Deus … 375 postulasse] Lc. 16:25 379 de … 380 supra] JOHN OF KENT, Summa,3.331-42

366 Sacerdos] om. R 369 dominium] suum add. G 370 Item] om. G | sacerdos] om. R | preparacione]preparacionem R 371 quandoque] om. R | iratus] cum ira G | preparantur] preparatur G 372 saporose]sapide R 373 Sic] ita G 374 Inde … 375 postulasse] de hoc arguit deus illum diuitem euangelicumrefrigerium lingue per lazarum postulantem G 376 Hec … intelliguntur] de uomitu uero ut prius hec quiqueuicia possunt hoc uersu retineri G 378 De … gulositate] om. G 379 Benigne … 380 supra] post hec benigneostendantur mala G 380 odia] lites, paupertates G | que … secuntur] om. R 381 est1] om. G | esse] om. Gexhortandus] exorandus G 386 bibas … 387 quam] abstinere quod G 387 timeas … 388 ieiunii] sume etreuerearis sumere et ora deum ne amittas meritum ieiunii et si forte soluas illud G

214

ieiunii.

Item SACERDOS: Sumis electuarium uel species ante prandium uel post?

PENITENS: Ita. 390

SACERDOS: Si ad delectacionem uel et ad nutrimentum, puto soluis ieiunium, nisi

causa racionis subsit. Si autem ad euacuacionem, non dico quod tunc soluas.

De quadragesima non obseruata

Similiter querendum est si tempore quadragesime comederit caseum et lac et butirum

et utrum dominica qua cantatur Inuocauit comederit carnes, uel eas coxit illa die et 395

quod plus ualere quam alia die coctas crediderit.

De auaricia

SACERDOS: Habuisti rem alienam iniuste?

PENITENS: Non.

SACERDOS: Vide per singula si habuisti alienum bladum in grano uel in spica uel in 400

messe uel in alio tempore.

PENITENS: Ita, dum colligebam spicas, sumebam manipulos et garbas post

messores.

SACERDOS: Scis quod sumpsisti ad ualorem unius denarii?

PENITENS: Ita, ad ualorem multorum et a multis hominibus, singulis temporibus 405

mes-/-sis et aliis temporibus, tam in campis quam in domibus.fol. 228ra

SACERDOS: Hic est modus satisfaciendi de omni re alieno male habito: Si scis

uerum dominum, redde ei si potes. Si non potes, pete ueniam per sacerdotem uel per

aliquem tibi priuatum cui audeas reuelare. Et ille pro te pacificet te non nominato de

toto, uel de parte si aliam partem possis per eumdem soluere, et promittat pro te. Et tu 410

ei hoc concedas soluturum et plus si Deus tibi habundancius concesserit facultates; uel

389 Item] om. G | sacerdos] om. R | prandium] om. G 391 uel … ad2] et R | nisi … 392 soluas] om. G393 De … obseruata] om. G 394 Similiter] sic G | caseum et] om. R | et2] uel R 395 eas coxit] coxerit G396 quod] om. R | coctas] om. G | crediderit] tales excommunicantur add. R 398 Sacerdos] de auaricia sicpraem. G, om. R 400 in2] om. R | uel2] om. R 401 in] om. R 402 et … post] pos G 404 quod sumpsisti] siquem dampnificasti G 405 a … 406 temporibus] multos homines singulis temporibus G 407 re] om. G408 potes1] et add. G | ueniam] uel add. G 409 nominato] set pro aliquo indeterminate petat ueniam add. G410 si … soluere] om. R | tu … 411 concedas] in hoc te concedas ei G 411 tibi … facultates] dederit tibimeliorem facultatem G

215

tu ipse quoquomodo refundas in eius comodum quantum habuisti, intencione te

absoluendi pecunialiter uel per seruicia eo nesciente propter quid.

PENITENS: Absoluerer si darem ei tantum?

SACERDOS: Forte, si haberes erga te pro obligato ad tantum uel ad maius donec tibi 415

aliquomodo reddidisset. Unde sic illum tibi pocius obligares. Si tamen aliam uiam

non inuenires, facias ita. Et si tibi propter hoc aliquid dare cogitauerit aliquando,

tamen ad antidona semper tenearis, si illud bene non potes refutare.

PENITENS: Multi fraudatorum mortui sunt.

SACERDOS: Idem facias uxoribus uel heredibus siue proximioribus personis uel 420

testamentariis, scilicet gangiers, ita quod dicatur eis ut anime defuncti satisfaciant pro

parte sua. Et de residuo quilibet habeat quantum haberet, secundum ius et

consuetudinem patrie, si pecunia illa esset in archa mortui cum decessit.

PENITENS: Nichil dabunt mortuo.

SACERDOS: Sibi caueant. Non est tuum, ut michi uidetur, dare quicquam uiuente 425

aliquo predictorum, set tunc dandum est ad consilium ecclesie. Si autem dominus nec

aliquis predictorum potest inueniri, tunc dandum est pro anima defuncti et secundum

consilium ecclesie. Et si de toto non possis satisfacere, ieiuniis, oracionibus et

disciplinis, peregrinacionibus, seruiendo pauperibus et aliis bonis operibus te

absoluas, hoc pro eius anima faciendo. 430

SACERDOS: Vide si / alia habuisti, ut uinum uel uindemiam.fol. 228rb

PENITENS: Racemos sepe de aliena uinea comedi.

SACERDOS: Detulisti tecum ad ualorem unius denarii uel duorum denariorum?

PENITENS: Non.

SACERDOS: Si uinum uel ceruisiam male traxisti, id est male mensurasti, ualor 435

prouentus male detur pauperibus. Sic de mensuris ubi non noscuntur defraudati.

412 quoquomodo] quomodo G | eius] -dem Ga.c. 413 uel … eo] pro seruicio ipso te G | propter quid] om. G414 Penitens … 416 reddidisset] om. R 416 sic … tibi] illum G | tamen] ad G | uiam] causam R417 inuenires facias] inuenias fac G | dare … 418 tamen] dari noueris aliquando G 418 ad antidona] ante addona R | potes] ualeas G 420 Sacerdos] hoc add. G | siue] uel G 421 scilicet gangiers] om. R | ita] tamenadd. G | eis] om. R 422 et … 423 consuetudinem] om. R 424 Nichil] non G 425 quicquam] del. Guiuente] cui quam inuento G 426 set … ecclesie] om. R | autem] nec G 427 potest … 428 ecclesie] possitinueniri dandam est inquam pro anima defuncti G 428 possis] potest R 429 disciplinis] et add. G 430 hoc]et R 431 Sacerdos] om. R | ut] uel G | uel] om. R 433 denarii] om. G 435 uel ceruisiam] om. Gtraxisti … 436 defraudati] mensurasti R

216

SACERDOS: Commedisti alienum altile uel alienam bestiam?

PENITENS: Sic.

SACERDOS: Si occidisti uel ad hoc auxilium uel consilium dedisti, redde aliquo

supradictorum modorum. 440

PENITENS: Plures fuimus simul.

SACERDOS: Reddatis simul, alioquin tu reddas totum.

PENITENS: Et ipsi nichil?

SACERDOS: Si aliquando peniteant, quicquid reddant ad te deuoluetur, et hoc

dicetur tam eis quam ei cui soluitur. 445

PENITENS: Nesciui cum occisum fuit set datum comedi.

SACERDOS: Redde quantum ualebat quod tu et tui comedebatis.

SACERDOS: Habuisti male alienam uestem uel ornamentum uel utensilia uel uasa

domus alterius, meramentum, sepes, clausuras uel ligna?

PENITENS: Sic. 450

SACERDOS: Fac ut dictum est. Similiter si ortos aut segetes aut uirgulta aut prata

deuastasti, aut aliquid ex hiis dampnificasti.

Necesse est memoriam simplicium excitare. Sic enim uident que ante interrogacionem

non uidebant.

<SACERDOS:> Habuisti male alienum nummum? 455

PENITENS: Non.

SACERDOS: Vide si per furtum uel fraudem uel male computando, quod dicitur

mescome.

SACERDOS: Inuenisti aliquid?

PENITENS: Non male habui quod inueni. 460

437 Sacerdos] si R | alienam] aliam G 439 Si] om. R | auxilium … 440 supradictorum] auxilio uel consilioconsensisti reddo aliquo predictorum G 442 simul] ergo R | reddas] redde G 444 Sacerdos] om. Gpeniteant] penituerint G 447 ualebat] id add. G 448 Sacerdos] om. R | uel2 … 449 sepes] utensile utinstrumenta domus alterius quod est ostil uel merementum uel sepes et G 449 uel] et R 451 Sacerdos] sicadd. G | aut2] om. R | aut3] om. R 452 deuastasti … dampnificasti] deuastauit aut aliquam in hisdampnificauit G 453 que … interrogacionem] quod sine interrogacione G 455 Sacerdos] item add. G457 si] om. R | uel1] per R | uel2] om. G | quod … 458 mescome] om. R 459 Sacerdos] si G 460 Penitens]hoc add. G

217

SACERDOS: Non bene lucratus es quod inuenisti, set si scire potuisti per

inquisicionem quis attulerat uel amiserat, reddere debuisti, si non, dare pauperibus

pro Deo, qui bene ei reddet, et qui eum bene nouerat cuius erant. Et si eis indigebas,

satisfacere debebas penitenciis supradictis pro eo.

PENITENS: Non feci. 465

SACERDOS: Modo / facias? Item: Fecisti furtum capitale quadrupedis uel magne rei?fol. 228va

Vel frangendo domum de nocte uel die uel ecclesiam uel cimiterium uel tale quod

bene sequeretur suspendium si sciretur?

PENITENS: Ita.

SACERDOS: Redde ut dictum est et fac penitenciam de peccato. Et generaliter non 470

sufficit restitucio sine pena de fraude uel peccato, ubi maius est, nisi necessitate fueris

compulsus hoc facere, ut tempore famis uel paupertate uel similibus.

De rapina

SACERDOS: Habuisti aliquid de rapina?

PENITENS: Ita, quia fui cum domino meo in exercitu. 475

SACERDOS: Scis dominum tuum tunc habuisse iustam causam?

PENITENS: Nescio.

SACERDOS: Committebas te discrimini?

PENITENS: Cogebar a domino.

SACERDOS: Cogebaris ire cum domino set non cogebaris aliquid mali facere. Set 480

debuisses tam homines quam res occultare ad salutem.

PENITENS: Non feci.

SACERDOS: Si dominus tuus iniustam habuit causam, redde in ornamentis

ecclesiarum et pauperibus parrochiarum ubi spoliasti, et fac queri indulgenciam toti

parrochie a sacerdote. 485

461 set] om. G 462 attulerat uel] om. G 464 debebas] om. R 466 Modo … Item] om. G | capitale] ut add.G 467 Vel] et G | uel die] om. G | quod … 468 bene] quid unde G 471 pena … peccato] penitencia defraude de pacto R | est] peccatum add. G | fueris] fuerit G 472 paupertate] paupertatis R | uel2] et G473 De rapina] om. G 474 Sacerdos] om. R | rapina] roberio G 476 tunc habuisse] habere G478 Sacerdos] sic add. G | te discrimini] discrimen G 480 Sacerdos] om. G | domino … non] eo et si GSet] om. G 481 salutem] et iuuare add. G 483 iniustam habuit] iustam fouebat G 484 spoliasti] spoliatisunt G | toti] om. G

218

PENITENS: Dominus meus erat ex parte regis Francie.

SACERDOS: Putas regem habuisse iustam causam ibi ubi spoliastis?

PENITENS: Nescio.

SACERDOS: Tutum est ut quicquid rapuisti, reddas, uel quod satisfacias in aliquo,

ut dictum est. Et si in toto non potes, pete ueniam in parrochiis spoliatis. Et fac 490

penitenciam grauem, in qua illi accipiant pro rato, et precare Domini ueniam et ut

largitate sua inenarrabili pro te eis reddat.

De incendiariis

<SACERDOS:> Similiter si interfueris incendio uel uiolacioni ecclesiarum uel

cimiteriorum, uide utrum fueris propter hoc excommunicatus. 495

De excommunicacione dicetur post.

De mala empcione

SACERDOS: Emisti predam a raptoribus uel aliquid? /fol. 228vb

PENITENS: Ita.

SACERDOS: Si non habebant ius ibi, male emebas, et satisfacias ut prius dictum est. 500

Vel aliquomodo similiter si emisti a fure quem sciebas uel uehementer opinabaris esse

furatum, crimini te committebas, et furto eius quasi consenciebas. Quod autem a fure

uel Iudeo uel raptore extorquetur, non eis set uero domino uel pauperibus detur.

Similiter SACERDOS: Ab uxorata emisti nesciente domino?

PENITENS: Non mulier de suo uendere potest? 505

SACERDOS: Ita, si ponat in communi utilitate negociorum domus, ut in lino, lana et

huiusmodi, <et> si dominus eius non uult de huiusmodi prouidere, aliter non.

496 dicetur post] JOHN OF KENT, Summa, 3.780-5 500 prius … est] JOHN OF KENT, Summa, 3.404-19

486 Francie] om. R 487 iustam causam] ius G | ubi spoliastis] om. R 488 Nescio] sic G 489 ut … uel]quicquid habuit rex R 490 ut … Et1] om. G | potes] et add. G | in2 … spoliatis] a parrochiis R 491 grauem]om. R | in … rato] om. G | Domini … et2] deum G 493 De incendiariis] om. G 494 interfueris] fueris in G495 cimiteriorum] et add. R 497 De … empcione] om. G 498 Sacerdos] om. R | Emisti … aliquid] eruisitipredam uel aliquid a predatoribus G 500 habebant] habebat G R | emebas] eruebas G | satisfacias]satisfaciat R 501 aliquomodo … si] alio modo R | emisti] eruisti G | opinabaris] illud add. G 502 criminite] quia crimen G | Quod … 503 detur] om. G 504 sacerdos] si R | emisti … domino] eruisti nesciente uiro G505 Non mulier] mulier nostri G 506 negociorum] negociatorum G | lino] uel add. G 507 eius … huiusmodi2] non uult de his G

219

PENITENS: Nescio hoc.

SACERDOS: Est illa fame bone, et caste ut dicitur?

PENITENS: Non. 510

SACERDOS: Ergo presumendum est in malum et furto eius consensisti. Et si

dominus rem emptam in domo tua cognosceret, uelles <uel> nolles, eam retraheret?

PENITENS: Ita est.

SACERDOS: Ergo uides te non habere ius propter talem empcionem, et similiter de

fure satisfac ergo et uero domino. Similiter si habuisti a seruis nescientibus dominis. 515

De dacione causa stupri

<SACERDOS:> Similiter si habuisti causa stupri ab uxorata uel ancilla aliquid de

rebus domini, uel a religioso uel a religiosa non habente proprium.

De iure parrochiali retento

SACERDOS: Retinuisti de decimis ecclesie alicuius? 520

PENITENS: Non, set trahentes decimas uel messores dederunt michi.

SACERDOS: Non potuerunt nisi reddant ecclesie. Item: Retinuisti oblaciones debitas

et iura parrochialia?

PENITENS: Ita, quia non poteram reddere.

SACERDOS: Si dicas sacerdoti, te libenter acquietabit. Si autem auaricia uel odio 525

sacerdotis retines, satisfacias ei.

PENITENS: Defraudaui aliquem in tantum quantum de meo iniuste retinebat.

SACERDOS: Poterasne alio modo habere?

PENITENS: Ita, si ad hoc uellem niti.

SACERDOS: Quere / ergo, et redde quod fraudasti. Fraus enim tua fraude eius nonfol. 229ra 530

tollitur, neque peccatum peccato.

PENITENS: Et si non possum rehabere?

512 retraheret] rem haberet G 514 Sacerdos] om. G | uides … talem] iudices te non habere bene uel propterG 515 ergo et] om. G 516 De … stupri] om. G 517 Similiter] eodem modo G 518 uel1 … religioso] om. Greligiosa] et add. R 519 De … retento] om. G 520 Sacerdos] om. R | de decimis] decimas G 521 Penitens]non set add. G | Non set] om. R 522 debitas] om. G 525 acquietabit] quitabit G 526 retines] om. R527 aliquem] eum G 530 Quere] quare G | et redde] reddes G | tua] eius G | eius] tua G 531 neque] necG 532 non possum] possim R

220

SACERDOS: Si certus es quod in tantum iniuriatur tibi, saltem penitenciam fac de

fraude.

De usura 535

SACERDOS: Habuisti aliquid de usura?

PENITENS: Non, set a patre meo michi est aliquid deuolutum.

SACERDOS: Redde pro patre et pro te, quia in eo neuter ius habet uel habebat, et

libera utrumque.

PENITENS: Vadia michi reliquit. 540

SACERDOS: Si forte acceperat illud quod restabat, tantum sume et redde domino

rei. Si ultra sortem acceperat, consulo ut patrem liberes et procures ut ab ipso

adquietetur.

SACERDOS: Et tu accepisti uadia predictorum?

PENITENS: Ita, set cum redempta fuerunt, bene concordauimus. 545

SACERDOS: Tunc redimentes faciunt quod possunt, non quod ius est. Set nunc si

scis te recepisse aliquid ultra sortem, deductis tamen et solutis tibi expensis

extollendis redde uel pone tunc in eius uoluntate.

PENITENS: Intolerabiliter me grauaret.

SACERDOS: Committatis uos uterque in arbitrio alicuius boni uiri et facies quod 550

decreuerit. Non uideo aliam uiam.

De firmis

SACERDOS: Accepisti terram ad firmam a paupere uel milite pecunia indigente?

PENITENS: Sic.

SACERDOS: Nisi causa iusta fuerit, ut in dubium uenerit utrum amitteres uel 555

533 Sacerdos] om. G | certus] tutus R | in] non R | iniuriatur] iniuriatus est G 535 De usura] om. G536 Sacerdos] om. R 538 Redde] et add. G | te] et usum utrumque add. G | ius … 539 utrumque] uel habetuel habebat G 541 forte] citra sortem G | et … 542 rei] redde domino rem suam G 542 ut1] quod G543 adquietetur] quitetur G 544 tu] tua R | predictorum] prediorum G 545 cum … fuerunt] redempta erantR 547 deductis … 548 uoluntate] deductam tibi et saluis expensis pro uadiis excolendis redde uel pone te ineius opcionem et uoluntatem G 549 grauaret] grauat G 550 facies … 551 decreuerit] facias quod decreueritut liberet G 551 uiam] causam G 552 De firmis] om. G 553 Sacerdos] om. R | terram … firmam] Gin marg.

milite] multum R 555 causa] tam R | ut] om. G | utrum] utrumque G

221

lucreris, turpe fuit lucrum et grauamen. Et tantum ei restitues estimato quid

peruenerit ultra sortem, quantum de iure posses uelle tibi fieri consimile.

De animalibus ad augmentum

SACERDOS: Tradidisti animalia ad augmentum, gallice ad crois?

PENITENS: Ita. 560

SACERDOS: Deperiit capitale morte uel alio modo?

PENITENS: Ita.

SACERDOS: Sumpsisti tibi aliud capitale de residuo, quod prouenerat antequam

precio uenerat?

PENITENS: Ita, est consuetudo. /fol. 229rb 565

SACERDOS: Praua est, quia tunc non possunt mori tibi ille bestie. Deus autem non

fecit quod non posset mori, set si tua est et moritur, tibi debet mori non custodi, nisi

pro defectu custodie si hoc euenerit.

De nummis ad augmentum

Similiter de nummis uel mercibus datis alicui mercatorum ad lucrum, medietas 570

perditi debet esse in periculo dantis, non mercatoris. Et cum laborat in hoc, debet

uiuere de communi. Et si labor conducticius est, ut sutoria uel huiusmodi,

conducticius seruus de lucro, si ibi est ultra medietatem suam, aliam debet percipere

porcionem.

Mercatoribus dicendum est quod, si aliquid uendiderint ad terminum plus quam res 575

ualeret, de illo plus satisfaciant, ut dictum est. Similiter si ab indigente emerunt

aliquam rem minus quam ualeret, ut statim pecuniam daret, et rem longe post

expectaret, quod dicitur emere per angustum. Similiter si uendiderunt rem uiciosam

556 lucreris] lucrareris G | restitues] restituas G 557 peruenerit] prouenerit G | posses] possis G | fieri] inadd. G 558 De … augmentum] om. G 559 Sacerdos] om. R | gallice … crois] om. R 561 capitale] aut add.G | uel] aut G 563 tibi aliud] illud G 564 precio uenerat] fieret perdicio G 566 tunc] sic G | non2 … 567set] nullam fecit que non possit mori et G 568 custodie si] om. G 569 De … 571 dantis] simile est denummis uel de mercibus dans alicui mercatori ad lucri medietatem tradi enim debet periculo domini G572 conducticius] conductius R | huiusmodi] sorte pro mercede quasi add. G 573 conducticius] conductiuisR | seruus] seruis R | si ibi] sibi G | aliam] aliquam G | percipere] participare R 574 porcionem]proprocationem proportionem G 575 aliquid] om. G 576 ualeret] ut statim pecuniam daret et rem add. Rde … 637 alienam] om. R 578 uendiderunt] uendidit G

222

scienter, et emptori non expresserunt.

Militibus uero <dicendum est quod>, si ab hominibus suis gallinas, fenum et auenam 580

et alia extorserunt, et eciam tallias indebitas et super tallias, debent eis satisfacere. Vel

si non nouerint quantitatem, dicant illis quod ab eis aliquid accipiant, secundum quod

ab eis uidebitur. Nec illud dico timere homines, quod rancorem erga eos propter hoc

non habebunt, nec eos propter <hoc> grauabunt. Et hoc facto quantum dixerint

homines, et si egros quitauerint spontanee, puto quod liberati sunt. Et si nolunt facere, 585

saltem ut minus graue sit peccatum, debent humiliter ab hominibus ueniam postulare.

Indebite autem tallie sunt que ad uoluntatem dominorum fiunt, ut quantum et

quociens uoluerint. Deberet enim esse totum inter dominum et homines, ut qui

haberent centum librarum ualorem darent septem uel decem, ita quod aliqua certa

porcio haberetur. 590

Post peccata corporalia, id est que circa res corporales exerceri solent, dicamus de

spiritualibus, id est que in corde et spiritu frequentius exercentur.

De superbia

SACERDOS: Sensisti aliquando cor tuum superbia eleuari?

PENITENS: Nunquam fui superbus. 595

SACERDOS: Vide utrum supra te uel alios eleuatum siue pro cantu exteriori uel

nobilitate generis uel diuiciis uel potencia uel uirtute corporis uel pulcritudine uel

scientia uel uocis modulacione et melodia; et utrum coram hominibus nitebaris

placere gestu corporis uel capitis uel manuum uel pedum; uel utrum superbe

respiciebas uel loquebaris iactando et tibi aliquid ascribendo falso uel alios 600

contempnendo et aliquid tue sciencie uel uirtuti uel factis atribuendo falso.

Si dicat non, SACERDOS: Putas te esse peiorem patre tuo?

PENITENS: Non.

SACERDOS: Ergo te prefers alicui forte, qui te melior est et ideo carior.

PENITENS: Ita est. 605

579 expresserunt] expressit G 583 dico] dicere G | propter] deum add. G 594 Sacerdos] de superbia sicpraem. G 602 patre tuo] patrie tue G

223

SACERDOS: Stude de cetero habere cor humile et mansuetum, et hoc a Deo pete.

De uana gloria

SACERDOS: Appetis multum laudari ab hominibus et magnificari?

PENITENS: Ita.

Si dicat non, SACERDOS: Nonne putas bonum? 610

PENITENS: Bonum est laudari.

SACERDOS: Nonne multa bona propter hoc fecisti libentius, ut elemosinas et alia

suffragia pauperum et oraciones longiores in ecclesia et genuflexiones et cetera

huiusmodi?

PENITENS: Ita. 615

SACERDOS: Scias te omnia hec, et quantum ad animam tuam et ad Deum, amisisse

ideo, quia accepisti mercedem quam optasti. Propter quam hoc fecisti?

PENITENS: Pro Deo et honore hoc faciebam.

SACERDOS: Pro quo honore? Si honore Dei, bonum est. Si honore tuo, Deo a quo

erat illud bonum et honori illius fraudem fecisti, et eciam tibi quia illud amisisti. 620

Hoc dicitur propter hypocrisim, quam hoc nomine non recognosceret.

SACERDOS: Finxisti te bonum extra, aliqua de causa, aliquo bono signo exteriori,

cum esses malus extra et immundus?

PENITENS: Nonne celanda sunt propter scandalum et malum exemplum?

SACERDOS: Sunt utique. Set aliud est hoc quam fingere bonum et sanctum falso et 625

laudabilem.

PENITENS: Ostentaui aliquociens sanctitatem que non erat in corde.

SACERDOS: Huiusmodi dicuntur hypocrite et papalardi. Vide de cetero ut iustius et

sanctius te habeas in corde quam ostendas signo uel opere.

PENITENS: Non possum omnia bona opera celare. 630

SACERDOS: Si fiat bonum ad exemplum aliorum in aperto, sana maneat intencio in

occulto et apta in mente, ut non tu set Deus a quo est illud bonum potius honoretur.

Et si audias inde te laudari, statim laudes illas mente Deo referens <et> ei studeas

608 Sacerdos] de uana gloria praem. G 612 ut] et G 613 genuflexiones] geneflexiones G 629 sanctius]sancius G 630 possum] possumus G 633 te] Gin marg.

224

presentare dicens in corde: Tu, Deus, benedicaris per quem illud factum est et

lauderis. 635

De inuidia

Sciendum quod simplices inuidiam se habere dicunt quando appetunt rem alienam. /fol. 229vb

Item questio est utrum sit inuidus et concesso ab eo statim queratur: Tristaris

aliquando de bonis alienis?

PENITENS: Non. 640

SACERDOS: Nonne displicet tibi quod dicior sit alius quam tu uel potencior uel

magis amatus uel magis laudatus uel melius uestitus uel quod plus lucratur in foro

uel alibi quam tu, uel quia ei plus datur quam tibi uel a Deo uel ab hominibus, te

iudicans eque uel magis tali beneficio esse dignum, uel quia fertiliores eius uineas

uides quam tuas? Quia in huiusmodi uix possibile est aliquam aliquando non moueri 645

ad inuidiam.

Item SACERDOS: Gaudes aliquando de alicuius malo uel dampno uel paupertate uel

infortunio uel inobprobrio uel uituperacione uel alicuius quod tendat ad dedecus uel

minoracionem glorie, laudis boni uel honoris alicuius?

Et sic de ceteris a quibus oritur inuidia. 650

De iracundis

SACERDOS: Es iracundus?

PENITENS: Non.

SACERDOS: Nullus est qui multociens non irascitur multis de causis.

PENITENS: Verum est, et ego aliquociens set cito transit ira mea. 655

SACERDOS: Non est sine peccato ira et, si morosa, sic efficitur mortalis et maxime si

637 Sciendum] de inuidia sic praem. G 638 Item … est] unde quesito ab eo G | ab eo] om. R 641 dicior … alius] alicuius dicior G 642 magis2] om. G 644 iudicans] iudicas G | uineas] uel segetes add. G645 Quia … aliquando] et huiusmodi quibus uix possibile est aliquam G 647 Item] om. G | sacerdos] om. Raliquando] quandoque G | paupertate] pauperatione G 648 inobprobrio] inproperatione G | ueluituperacione] om. G | tendat] cedat G 649 minoracionem] minoracione R | glorie] uel add. G | laudis] ueladd. G 650 a] de G 651 iracundis] ira G 652 Sacerdos] de ira sic praem. G, similiter R 654 multociens]om. G 655 ira mea] om. G 656 efficitur] sit G

225

conuertatur in odium. Item: Habesne aliquem odio?

PENITENS: Non.

SACERDOS: Velles quod malum alicui accidet?

PENITENS: Non per me. 660

SACERDOS: Nec per alium pro te?

PENITENS: Multi sunt qui michi iniuriati sunt et uellem quod eis malum accideret,

set id non procurarem.

SACERDOS: In quo efficereris melior de malo suo?

PENITENS: In nullo nisi quia gauderem. 665

SACERDOS: Iniuriatur tibi et tu magis noces tibi quam ipse fecerit, quia te occidis

spiritualiter eo quod tibi nocuit temporaliter uel corporaliter. Deus qui orauit pro

crucifigentibus se precepit nobis non tantum indulgeri, set et ut oremus pro

persequentibus nos et diligamus inimicos et benefaciamus hiis qui oderunt nos.

PENITENS: Non possum habere tale cor. 670

SACERDOS: Non est cor tuum secundum Deum. Magis / enim diligere debes eosfol. 230ra

quam amicos quos uocas amicos, si sapiens es, quia absoluunt te a debitis Deo

quantum tibi debent emendare pro forefacto. Si eis pro Deo et preceptis eius dimittas,

tantum tibi dimittet Deus pro quo facis hoc, immo centuplum. Si amicos diligis, que

tibi merita? Si pro Deo dimittis, Deus tibi tenetur, et multo grauiora commisisti erga 675

Deum quam illi erga te. Ergo si uis tibi dimitti maius, dimitte minus. Si autem querela

aliqua est inter te et ipsum, hanc non cogam te dimittere, set necesse est ut rancorem

dimittas, quia qui odit fratrem suum homicida est. Rancor autem nocet tibi et

corporaliter et spiritualiter. Unde sanum est consilium Dei preceptum seruare et ut

dimittas, aliter non ualeret tua conuersacio. 680

PENITENS: Ex quo ita est, dimitto.

657 Item] om. G 659 accidet] accideret G 661 pro te] om. G 665 quia] quod G 666 Iniuriatur] iniuriatusest G 667 tibi] parem add. G | temporaliter uel] om. R 668 precepit] precipit G | et] eciam G 669 et1 … inimicos] om. G 670 possum] possem G 671 Sacerdos] ergo add. G | enim] om. G | diligere … 672amicos2] diligeres eos quam amicos tuos quos uocas inimicos de perdonando G 672 es] esses G | absoluunt]absoluerunt G | Deo … 673 quantum] apud deum quantum ei G 673 preceptis] precepto G 674 tibi dimittet]dimitteret G 675 merita … Deo] merces si hiis G 676 illi] isti G 677 ipsum] ipsos G | cogam] rogaui Gut] om. G 678 suum] om. G | Rancor … 679 spiritualiter] om. R 679 consilium] immo add. G | seruare et]om. G 680 ualeret … conuersacio] ualet confessio G 681 est] consulis G

226

De blasphemia lingue

Quoniam autem tam ex lingua quam ex aliis supradictis mouentur homines ad

malum, de talibus dicendum est, et primo de blasphemia.

SACERDOS: Es assuetus per iram aliqua de causa iurare aliquod de membris Dei uel 685

sanctorum?

PENITENS: Ita.

SACERDOS: Cuiusmodi iuramentum est? Estne ibi blasphemia? Et eciam sine

iuramento blasphemaris quandoque, ut de Deo et sanctis eius, in ludo, inhonesta et

contumeliosa dicis? 690

PENITENS: Ita.

SACERDOS: Graue est peccatum plus quam estimes. Pete ueniam et dimitte talia

dicere.

PENITENS: Quod si iuro illum transgrediar?

SACERDOS: Ante, preuide quam affirmes iuramento. Item SACERDOS: Esne assuetus 695

per iram aliqua de causa conuiciare et male dicere de facili et dicere uerba scurilia et

mouentia auditores ad cogitandum de luxuria et ad risum et ad alicuius derisionem et

cantilenas et inimica et garrula et huiusmodi uana?

PENITENS: Ita est de omnibus.

De choreis 700

SACERDOS: Intras libenter choreas et ducis eas?

PENITENS: Ita.

SACERDOS: Si scires quot occasiones dant peccandi et animas occidendi, ut ignem

eas deuitares. Dixit enim michi quidam confessor meus bonus et sanctus quod, si

aliquis ibi moreretur, non / dubitauit quin anima a diabolo deferetur. Unde consulo utfol. 230rb 705

682 De … lingue] om. G 683 lingua] ira G | homines] tam lingua quam manus G 684 et … blasphemia] om.G 685 assuetus … aliqua] consuetus per iram uel alia G | Dei] deum G 688 Et] uel R 689 quandoque ut]om. R | sanctis eius] de sanctis G | ludo] uel ubi add. R 692 Graue … 695 Sacerdos] om. R 694 Penitens … transgrediar] emendaui, sacerdos quod si iuras illum transgrederis G 695 Item] om. G | sacerdos] om. REsne … 696 conuiciare] es consuetus conuiciari G 696 et2] iterum G 697 de luxuria] luxuriose G | ad3] om.G 698 inimica … garrula] runica R | et3] ad add. R 700 De choreis] om. G 701 Sacerdos] om. R | Intras … choreas] inter es choreis G 703 quot] quantas G 704 deuitares] dimitteres R | meus] et add. G705 dubitauit] dubitabat G | diabolo] eius add. G

227

de cetero caueas ab illis.

De detractione

SACERDOS: Consueuistine detrahere?

PENITENS: Non.

SACERDOS: Nonne dixisti multa de aliquo quorum similia non uelles de te dici? 710

PENITENS: Ita.

SACERDOS: Hoc est detractio, quod dicitur mesdit. Et si scires quam malum sit

detrahere et Deo odibile et dampnum inrestaurabile, hoc ut pestem fugeres. Et non

solum fugeres detrahere, set eciam detractores audire et eos corrigere si audires, si

non te corporaliter uel mentaliter subtraheres, et hoc tibi consulo si uis Deo placere. 715

De mendacio

SACERDOS: Consueuisti mentiri?

PENITENS: Ita.

SACERDOS: Si nocuit alicui mendacium tuum uel in accusacione uel testimonio

falso, teneris ei satisfacere, et uide qui et quot sunt tales. 720

<De discordia>

SACERDOS: Seminasti discordiam inter aliquos uerbo uel facto?

PENITENS: Ita.

SACERDOS: Si dampnificatus est quis per hoc, restitue ei et nitaris eos ad 725

concordiam reuocare.

De periurio, et fide non obseruata

<SACERDOS:> Similiter incurristi periurium uel fidem fregisti uel aliquis

707 De detractione] om. G 708 Sacerdos] om. R | Consueuistine] consueuisti G 710 Nonne] nunneconsueuistidetur Ga.c. | aliquo] aliquibus G 712 quod … mesdit] om. R 713 odibile] et inhonestates hominiadd. G | inrestaurabile] instaurabile R 714 corrigere] corriperes G 715 te] tunc G | mentaliter] te add. G716 De mendacio] om. G 717 Sacerdos] om. R 719 tuum] uel in mercimonia add. G | uel2] in add. G720 sunt] sint G 723 Sacerdos] om. R | inter] in R 725 quis per] aliquis propter G 727 De … obseruata]om. G 728 Similiter] om. R | uel aliquis] similiter si quis G

228

dampnificatus est per hoc? Satisfac ei, et de peccato penitencia iniungenda est, et hoc

fit generale. 730

De uoto

SACERDOS: Votum fregisti?

PENITENS: Ita.

SACERDOS: Redi ad illud et fac penitenciam, et cum audieris indulgenciam super

illud, redde in elemosinis. 735

De sortilegiis

SACERDOS: Fecisti sortilegium dictis uel factis?

PENITENS: Non.

SACERDOS: Nonne doctus fuisti ab aliquo uel ab aliqua uetula?

PENITENS: Multa michi erant dicta, set nihil horum feci. 740

SACERDOS: Vide utrum pro amore alicuius uel odio uel precibus motus fecisti

aliquod horum, et utrum ante matrimonium ut haberes aliquam in uxorem uel scires

quam haberes, uel post matrimonium. Et utrum herbas ad hoc collegisti et aliquid de

ecclesia sumpsisti / et ut aliquam aliquid horum facere docuisti.fol. 230va

SACERDOS: Scis aliquam precantacionem ad febres et ad aliquam infirmitatem que 745

dicitur benedictio?

PENITENS: Ita.

SACERDOS: Dic que est.

Si autem est ibi coniuracio et mendacium, prohibendum est. Et ostendendum quod

coniurare est quasi uelle uiolentiam Deo irrogare, quantum in eo est qui coniurat, et 750

cogere ut Deus faceret quod ante nolebat. Si dicat coniuro infirmitatem, dicatur illi:

729 per … 730 fit] satisfaciendum est ei et de penitencia iniungenda et hoc sit G 731 De uoto] iterum G732 Sacerdos] om. R 734 et2 … 735 in] cum audieris indulgencias super huiusmodi redime G 736 Desortilegiis] om. G 737 sortilegium] sacrilegia G | dictis] doctus R 739 doctus] edoctus G | ab2] om. G740 erant] sunt G | nihil horum] nullam R 742 aliquod … utrum] aliquem horum uel R 743 quam] uel Gad hoc] om. R | et … 744 sumpsisti] om. G 744 et] uel G | horum] harum R | facere docuisti] faceretrogauisti G 745 Sacerdos] om. R | et … aliquam2] uel aliam G 747 Ita … 748 Sacerdos] om. R 749 autem]om. R | ibi … et] iuracio uel G | ostendendum] est add. G 750 uelle] om. G | Deo] om. R | et] om. G751 faceret] faciat G | illi] ipsam R

229

<Deus> non audit te, set pocius diabolus loco eius. Et preterea, non es ordinatus ad

exorcistam. Et dicendum est quicquid ex mendacio oritur, a diabolo qui est pater

mendacii primo et principaliter generatur. Et quod amplius nichil dicat nisi Pater

noster et Credo in Deum et cetera et Aue Maria. Et si Deus uoluerit exaudire eum, 755

bonum est, set non est cogendus.

De consensu stupri

SACERDOS: Portasti uerba mendacii homini pro muliere et econuerso ad peccatum

perpetrandum?

Si sic, queratur quot coniugatis et quot solutis et quot ordinatis et cetera, ut supra de 760

circumstanciis luxurie quam uiderit expedire. Et ostendendum quod si mortem

corporis procurasset, posset ad mortem accusari. Similiter de morte animarum a

Domino potest accusari, quia procurauit et consensit peccata eorum, quasi particeps

fuit. Nec pro alio de cetero uelit dampnari. Similiter si aliquos sponte ad hoc in domo

uel loco priuato receperit, uel celauerit et consenserit ubi possit impedire. 765

De iniectione manuum in clericis

SACERDOS: Irruisti in alium uiolenter?

PENITENS: Ita.

SACERDOS: Cuiusmodi personam?

PENITENS: Clericum uel religiosum uel leprosum. 770

SACERDOS: Excommunicatus es, nec potes absolui nisi a domino papa uel eius

mandato uel potestate alii commissa.

760 supra] JOHN OF KENT, Summa, 3.73-94

752 audit te] audire R | eius] illius G 753 Et] eciam add. G | est1] ei quod add. G | diabolo] oritur add. Rest2] del. G 755 in … cetera] om. G | eum] om. R 756 set] et si non G 757 De … stupri] om. G758 Sacerdos] om. R | mendacii homini] nuncii G 760 et1] om. G | quot ordinatis] si aliquot ordinatisportauerit G 761 quam] quas G | ostendendum] ostendat G 762 de … 763 quia] si mortem animarum adomino accusari potest de morte animarum quam G 763 et consensit] et consumsit Ga.c. | peccata] et peccatiG | quasi] et causa et R 764 uelit] om. G | Similiter] om. R 765 uel1] in add. G | receperit … impedire]recepit et celauit et consensit ubi posset impedisse G 766 De … clericis] om. G 767 Sacerdos] om. RIrruisti … uiolenter] iniecisti manum uiolentiam in aliquam personarum G 770 religiosum] in religiosum G

230

Religiosos uero uoco canonicos, hospitelarios, templarios, leprosos qui sunt in

congregacione, non uagos, et condonatos in domibus / Dei qui habent habitumfol. 230vb

religionis et consimiles. Idem est si auctoritatem uel consilium uel auxilium ad idem 775

prestitit.

Octo tamen sunt casus in quibus percussores excusantur uel, si excommunicati sunt,

ab episcopo suo possunt absolui: primus, si nesciebat ipsum esse clericum; secundus,

si percussor erat infra quatuordecim annos; tercius, si iocose; quartus, si propter

disciplinam quintus, si uterque religiosus, abbas potest eos absoluere; sextus, si ex 780

officio facit uiam <et> percusserit episcopo uel persone cui solet fieri, set non ex

elatione uel electione uel malicia, episcopus potest eum absoluere; septimus, si inuenit

eum turpiter agentem cum matre uel filia uel uxore uel sorore; octauus, quando se

defendendo, non animo uindicandi set uim repellendi, et cum moderamine inculpate

tutele, id est non multum iniuriando, sed parum secundum quod iniuriatus est et in 785

continenti, non longe post ex rancore ei insidias et dolos machinans. Hec autem non

sunt laicis dicenda, set inquirenda utrum aliqua earum ualeat inueniri.

De excommunicacione

SACERDOS: Es excommunicatus aliqua de causa?

PENITENS: Non. 790

SACERDOS: Audisti excomunicari in ecclesia pro aliqua, unde te reum esse

cognosceres uel consentires uel timeres uel scires quod non dixeris sacerdoti, ut de

furto uel impedimento matrimonii uel aliquo alio?

773 uero] om. R 774 congregacione] congregacionibus G | et] set R | in domibus] domorum G775 auctoritatem … 776 prestitit] ad auctoritatem siue consilium uel auxilium uel adminiculum ad idemprestiterit G 777 Octo tamen] uerumptamen R | in] om. G 778 primus] est add. G | ipsum] om. Gsecundus] est add. G 779 annos] annum G 780 uterque] est add. G | eos] om. R 781 percusserit] postmalicia R, om. G | uel] tali add. G | set] et G | ex … 782 uel1] om. R 782 eum] ipsum G | inuenit]inuenerit G 783 uel1] om. R | uel2] om. R | uel3] om. R 784 set uim] et R | et cum] inde etc R 785 id est]om. R | sed … quod] si paruum R 786 insidias] insidians R 787 utrum … earum] est causa utrum aliquaharum G 788 De excommunicacione] om. G 789 Sacerdos] similiter si R 790 Non] nescio G 791 Audisti]audistis R | aliqua] aliquo G | esse] om. R 792 consentires] consentaneunte G | scires] aliquod scienteminde add. G | quod … 793 furto] om. R

231

De communicantibus cum excommunicato

SACERDOS: Communicasti scienter cum excommunicato? 795

Si sic, queratur utrum aliqua harum excommunicacionum ibi fuerit, scilicet pater filio

non emancipato et econuerso, uir uxori et econuerso, seruus qui ante

excommunicacionem fide uel corporali seruitute tenebatur a domino, et dominus illi

potest communicare. Item ubi est iusta ignorancia et crassa, ut quando peregrinus non

potest uitare castrum uel uillam excommunicatorum. Et quando ille cui communicat 800

non est excommunicatus maiori excommunicacione set minori, quia / non transit infol. 231ra

terciam personam excommunicacio. Item in summa necessitate non debet ei

beneficium denegari.

De homicidio

Querendum est utrum hominem sponte uel casualiter occiderit, uel auxilium uel 805

consilium uel consensum adhibuerit. Si casu et non omnem diligenciam quam potuit

adhibuerit uel operi illicito operam tunc dabat, homicida est. Item querendum est

utrum puerum in utero uel ictu uel coitu cum pregnante uel improuidencia uel aliquo

casu perire fecerit. Et si uxori sue uel concubine acciderit aliquem perisse, et eciam si

nullam causarum nouerit determinate, timere debet uterque ne peccato eorum et 810

maxime si aliquo predictarum acciderit, et ad cautelam de aliis peccatis iniunges

penitenciam. Propter hunc casum debet iniungere maiorem et est monendum quod

propter hoc diligencius facienda sit, quia forte pater uel uterque causa fuit quod non

baptizatus fuit. Siue in utero periit siue natus, set si non baptizatus fuit, Dei gloriam

non uidebit in eternum. Unde magis dolendum de hoc quam de amissione omnium 815

temporalium que in mundo sunt, magis, inquam, incomparabiliter.

794 De … excommunicato] om. G 795 Sacerdos] om. R | cum] aliquo add. G 796 sic] om. R 797 uir] uiiG | et econuerso2] om. R 798 fide … a] fidelis corporali seruitute tenebatur G 799 crassa ut] non crassa et G800 communicat] communicatur R 801 maiori … minori] nisi minori excommunicacione G802 excommunicacio] om. R 804 De homicidio] om. G 805 Querendum] similter interrogandum Gocciderit] occidit G | auxilium] auxilio R 806 consilium] consilio R 808 uel1] om. G | coitu] uel add. R809 perisse] perimisse Gp.c., peremisse Ga.c. | et … 811 acciderit] timere debet uterque ne peccato uel noxa uelaliqua predictarum causarum hoc acciderit eciam si nullam causam nouerit determinate G 811 iniunges]iniungens G 813 diligencius] diligencia G | forte … quod] occasio fuit alter uel uterque quod ex quo G814 si … Dei] non baptizatus quia G 815 de1 … omnium] est quam de amissione omnium bonorum G

232

Similiter dicendum est ei qui morte aliquem preoccupauerit sic ut non confiteretur,

uel quia in odio ipsius occisoris et uoluntate ulciscendi uel aliquo odio mortali forte

decessit. Et quod ei non tantum de morte corporis set eciam anime timendum est,

quamdiu uixerit et dolendum. 820

De impedimento impregnacionis

Similiter querendum est de mulieribus utrum procurauerint ut conceptum excuteretur

uel impediretur concipiendum. Si sic, ut de homicida punienda est. Et <querendum

est> utrum, per illorum negligenciam uel culpam, aliquam de suis infantibus infra

etatem deputandam sue custodie decesserunt. 825

De accidia

SACERDOS: Fuisti aliquando grauis / et tedio affectus in faciendo bono, ita quodfol. 231rb

non poteras hylarem uultum exhibere, nec cor tuum ad bonum quod facere tenebaris

bene et hylariter applicare, set displicebat ex quadam cordis tristicia et negligencia

orare aut aliquod bonum facere; uel eciam in aliquo homine bonum non poteras cum 830

beneplacito uidere aut laudare aut amare?

PENITENS: Ita.

SACERDOS: Hoc perniciosum est, quia tunc fuit fit homo improuidens in agendis et

remissus et eciam pusillanimis et corde querulosus et displicens sibi ipsi et quasi

desperans. Et hoc non fit diu consuetudinarie sine mortali. 835

Item SACERDOS: Accidit tibi accidia quando non alicui operi intendis?

PENITENS: Ita, frequenter.

SACERDOS: Stude semper te aliquo bono opere exercitare, ne in tedio uel in peiori

cogitacione capiaris.

817 aliquem … confiteretur] preoccupauit aliquam quia non confitebatur R 818 ulciscendi] uindicandi Godio2] alio G 819 decessit] decesserunt R | eciam] de morte add. G 821 De … impregnacionis] om. G822 de] a G | ut … excuteretur] quod conceptus extingueretur G 823 homicida] homicidio G | Et] om. R824 illorum] eius G R | aliquam] suam aliqui G 825 deputandam] deputatis R 827 Sacerdos] de accidia sicpraem. G, om. R 828 facere] om. R 829 et1] aut G 830 aliquod … facere] ad bonum fratrem R | eciam … aliquo] in alio G 833 perniciosum] periculosum G | fit homo] fuit R 834 eciam] om. G | et3] despiciens etadd. G 835 Et … diu] nec fuit hoc diu uel G 836 Item] om. G | sacerdos] si R | tibi] tale quid scilicet add.G 838 semper … in2] ergo semper te in aliquo bono opere exercere et occuppari ne in tedio uel G

233

De festis non obseruatis 840

SACERDOS: Quibus operibus intendis festiuis diebus?

PENITENS: Sepe facio aliquid in uinea mea uel in domo.

SACERDOS: Si in festis in quibus prohibetur in ecclesia operari, uide ne aliquod

opus mechanicum, scilicet quod pro lucro temporali prout fieri solet, tunc facias, et

cessa a peccato, intendendo bono operi quod diem debeat aut possit pacare, ne accidia 845

aut noxiis uerbis seu cogitacionibus occuperis.

De communicacione in paschate

SACERDOS: Communicasti in quolibet pascha?

PENITENS: Ita.

SACERDOS: Es memor utrum aliquociens eo tempore de supradictis non uere 850

penitens in corde et de omnibus confessus esses et eis abrenunciasses aut eciam

habens, si se offereret oportunitas, propositum reuertendi?

Si sic, SACERDOS: Dampnacionem tuam accipiebas pocius quam salutem, ut dicit

Apostolus. Et tunc bonum est ut quociens corpus Domini in missa eleuari uideris,

quod / ualde spirituale reuerenciam exhibeas tam de hoc quam de aliis ueniamfol. 231va 855

implorando.

De ommissionibus

SACERDOS: Multa exciderunt tibi a memoria que peccasti tam opere quam corde et

ore, et hec contra Deum, contra te et contra proximum? Multa omisisti que facere

debuisses aut potuisses sine difficultate uel ad que tenebaris uel que meritoria tibi 860

fuissent plus quam opineris? Et eciam ea que fecisti, non ita apte et circumspecte

853 dicit … 854 Apostolus] 1 Cor. 11:29

840 De … obseruatis] om. G 841 Sacerdos] similiter queritur R 842 aliquid] om. R 843 Si … in2] in festis G844 scilicet quod] om. R | prout] om. G | et] sed feria id est G 845 intendendo … pacare] alicui operi bonoquod secundum diem fieri possit et debeat intendens G 847 De … paschate] om. G 848 Sacerdos] om. Rin] om. G 850 supradictis] aliquod supradictorum peccatorum G 852 habens] haberes G 853 sacerdos]tunc R | dicit] ait G 854 tunc] om. G | eleuari uideris] uiderit eleuari R 855 ualde spirituale] aliquamspecialem ei G | exhibeas] exhibeat R | de1 … de2] pro hoc tam quam pro G 857 De ommissionibus] om. R858 Sacerdos] de ommissionibus sic cum recapitulacione predictorum praem. G, om. R | opere … 859 hec]ore quam corde quam opere et hoc G 859 et2] om. G | facere] fecisse aut G 860 sine … uel1] cumdelectacione uel dilacione G 861 eciam] uel G | apte] pure G

234

fecisti ut deceret? Nec tantum aut eo modo malum uitasti ut necesse esset, nec bonis

qualitercumque factis aut malis quocumque modo deuitatis? Non ita Deo grates

reddidisti ut potuisses et debuisses? Non fuisti sollicitus operibus misericordie

faciendis que sunt uestire nudos, cibare esurientes, potare sitibundos, hospitari 865

aduenos peregrinos, uisitare infirmos et incarceratos, sepelire mortuos, et spiritualiter

eodem modo instruere, corrigere, reconciliare, indulgere et cetera?

PENITENS: In omnibus hiis omisi.

SACERDOS: Paratus es confiteri de omnibus oblitis, si Deus reduceret te ad

memoriam que quandoque fuerunt forte turpia et erubescencia? Si enim reductus ad 870

memoriam nolles confiteri et decederes sic in mortali aliquo, dampnaberis.

PENITENS: Paratus sum confiteri per Dei graciam.

SACERDOS: Pete ergo ueniam de omnibus que perfecisti in hac uita, quantum potes

satisfacere stude, quia quod in presenti uita de penitencia tua non feceris, perficies

infinitum grauius in futurum. 875

Scire autem debent sacerdotes quod non habent potestatem absoluendi penitentes ab

enormibus que sibi reseruant / maiores prelati in synodis, nisi in articulo necessitatis.fol. 231vb

Cuiusmodi sunt publici feneratores, incendiarii, falsi testes, periurantes super

sacrosancta propter lucrum uel dampnum aliorum et specialiter in assisis ubi sequitur

exheredacio et in causa matrimonii et cetera huiusmodi, sortilegii, falsarii sigillorum 880

et cartarum et huiusmodi, tonsores monete, impedientes testamentum racionabile et

qui incidunt in canonem late sentencie, specialissime si clericum percusserint.

Destinati sunt ad curiam romanam proditores, heretici, symoniaci et qui partum

supponunt ad alicuius exheredacionem. Similiter qui partum opprimunt negligenter

siue maliciose per pociones et huiusmodi postquam conceptum animatum fuerit, 885

raptores rerum ecclesiasticarum siue retentores omni casu, nisi in mortis articulo et

tunc sub condicione. Romam sunt destinandi qui in canonem late sentencie inciderunt

et symoniam commiserunt.

862 modo] uel intencione malum add. G 864 potuisses et] om. G 866 aduenos] aduenas et G867 corrigere … cetera] docere corrigere monere reconciliare indulgere et cetera huiusmodi G 869 te] tibi G870 que … forte] quecumque essent siue magna ad dicendum sie G | erubescencia] erubescenda Greductus] reducta G 871 dampnaberis] dampnareris G 872 confiteri] om. R 873 que perfecisti] et Gquantum] quam tu R 874 perficies] in add. G 875 futurum] futuro G 876 Scire … 923 periculum] om. G

235

Premissa per hos uersus possunt retineri:

Deditus usure, faciens incendia, falsi 890

Testes, sortilegi, falsarius atque monete

Tonsor, legatum impediens, a canone uincti,

Proditor ac heresim sectans, uendensque columbas,

Supponens partumue necans, rerumque sacrarum

Raptor, presbitero nequeunt a simplice solui. 895

Et hoc bene innuitur in euangelio ubi leprosos misit Dominus sacerdotibus et

quosdam misit superioribus, ut dicit Marcus: Vade, ostende te principi sacerdotum.

Peccata uero aliis magis periculosa sunt incidere in canonem, de quo nemo potest

absoluere, nisi dominus papa uel eius delegatus, preterquam in articulo necessitatis.

Periculosum est eciam uirginem deflorare. Nam dampnum illud est irreparabile, et sic 900

/ peccando iniuriatur quis Deo et hominibus et eciam angelis, quorum ruina crediturfol. 232ra

reparanda ex solis uirginibus. Periculose eciam peccat qui alium exhereditat aliquo

casu, cum non dimittitur peccatum nisi restituatur ablatum, scilicet si restitui possit.

Periculosum est eciam inhonestam prolem generare. Vix enim penitet aliquis de

inhonesta prole suscepta in fornicacione uel adulterio, contra quos est exemplum de 905

Iuda, qui potissime deberet excusari, si sequens successus posset precedens peccatum

excusare uel minuere. Quam periculosum eciam sit peccatum accedere ad lupanar et

cum publicis scortari meretricibus patet ex precedentibus; partum eciam necare uel

supponere.

Periculosum est prauam consuetudinem introducere, ut faciunt bedelli et satellites 910

principum. Vix enim aliqua consuetudo introducta remittitur. Et de introducentibus

prauam consuetudinem potest intelligi quod de Arrio scribitur: Nescitur quanta sit pena

Arrii, quia nescitur quot per eius falsam predicacionem sunt subuertendi. Et ad idem

persuadendum ualet quod dicitur in Sapiencia vii, in fine: Omnes filii qui nascuntur ex

iniquis testes sunt nequicie aduersus parentes in interrogacione sua. Hoc est qui prauas 915

897 Vade … sacerdotum] Mc. 1:44 906 Iuda] Gn. 38:11-30 912 Nescitur … 913 subuertendi] cfr PET. PICT.Sent. II, c.6 914 Sapiencia … 915 sua] Sap. 4:6

236

introducunt consuetudines tanto grauius punientur quanto plures habuerint

sectatores et prauitatis sue defensores.

De occultis laqueis symonie uix sibi prouidet aliquis. Hoc enim laqueo irretiuntur

precipue sanctimoniales et plerumque alii religiosi, necnon et clerici curiales qui

impendunt munus lingue uel obsequii pro beneficio / spirituali. Et possunt premissifol. 232rb 920

sic retineri:

Canon deflorat, heres, proles, lupa, partus,

Mos malus inductus, symon, dant illa periculum.

Factis autem interrogacionibus recogitare debet et reminisci sacerdos in quot et

quantis et in quibus generibus peccatorum inuenerit penitentem, ut sciat quibus 925

maior, quibus minor sit penitencia iniungenda. Et indicenda est ei penitencia a

canonibus instituta. Non dico iniungenda, nisi forte uiderit ipsum uelle et posse

perficere eam sine periculo transgressionis et nimii grauaminis corporalis, quod uix

aut nunquam potui reperire. Set tamen dicendum est ei ita statutum est in scripturis

quod pro maioribus mortalibus, ut adulterio et aliis supradictis, septennis uel 930

decennis uel quindecinnis annorum uel forte omni tempore uite sue est penitencia

agenda, ieiunandi diebus quatuor uel tribus uel duobus uel uno in ebdomada, et hoc

secundum maiorem uel minorem exigenciam peccatorum. Pro minoribus autem, ut

pro simplici fornicacione et supradictis, tribus annis uel minus secundum

diuersitatem graduum in peccatis. 935

Dixerunt enim quidam, quamuis alii non consenciant, quod si penitens paratus sit

condignam facere penitenciam et potest eam perficere, si sacerdos per indiscrecionem

uel inprouidenciam uel amorem penitentis uel fauorem uel aliquid huiusmodi ei

936 Dixerunt … consenciant] locum non inueni

924 autem] om. G 925 in … peccatorum] cuius generis peccatis G | ut] per hoc add. G 926 indicenda]dicenda G | ei] om. R 927 ipsum] eum G | posse] eam add. R 928 eam sine] in R | corporalis] corporis R929 potui reperire] potuit inuenire R | ei] om. G 930 quod] om. R | ut] sicut G | aliis supradictis] supra Guel] om. R 931 uel1] et R | penitencia … 932 agenda] penas faciendas R 932 ieiunandi … uel1] ieiunandodiebus G | hoc] om. G 934 pro] om. G | supradictis … minus] infra minor uel maior penitencia est agenda G936 enim] om. R | quamuis alii] quod quamuis aliis G | sit] est G 937 facere] accipere G | si] et G938 uel1] et G | uel3] om. G, et R | ei … 939 tenetur] ommitit iniungere ipse sacerdos tenetur G

237

pepercerit, sacerdos ad eam tenetur. Unde michi uidetur quod saltem dicendum est ei

enitere ad condignam penitenciam faciendam: Noueris enim quod hoc quod non 940

feceris de ea in presenti oportebit te facere in futuro, scilicet in purgatorio. Et scias

quod maior pena que hic potest sustineri ab aliquo / minor est quam minima earumfol. 232va

quas ibi tolerari necesse habet. Nec uolo quod post mortem possis de me merito

conqueri aut quod pro te tenear obligatus.

Hec enim forte ad hoc, ut per misericordiam facilius suscipiat et susceptam libencius 945

perficiat, adiuuabunt. Penitencias a canonibus institutas non est mee possibilitatis nec

eciam uoluntatis tibi nunc scribere, frater karissime. Unde uel hoc uel aliud petas, uel

tu ipse trahas a decretis, ubi eas inueneris alicubi extractas. Nec forte necesse est, nisi

ad inducendum eas penitentibus, ut dictum est.

Penitencie debent iniungi secundum arbitrium, id est iustum iudicium, considerata 950

qualitate et facto et statu et aliis personarum circumstanciis, ut iniungat quod iuste

decreuerit eum posse et uelle uel saltem debere uelle de iure suscipere, quod

nunquam fit nisi gracia Spiritus sancti adiuuante. Unde necesse est ut ipsius

prouidencia attencius in corde tunc imploretur.

Penitencia sit ieiuniis et oracionibus, uigiliis, elemosinis, cilicio, pannis laneis uel 955

asperis, ut sacco uel huiusmodi stupaceis, disciplinis, genuflexionibus et lacrimis,

peregrinationibus et labore corporali, frequenti memoria de peccatis, cum timore et

dolore et pudore coram Deo et sanctis, desiderio satisfaciendi et Deo reconciliandi,

compassione tribulatorum.

Ieiunium quandoque precipitur in pane et aqua, quandoque conceduntur olera et offe, 960

quandoque legumina et offe in eis, quandoque pisces, quandoque carnes, quandoque

940 enitere] nitere G | faciendam … enim] nec dubites G 941 feceris … presenti] poteris facere de ea Gscilicet] id est G 943 tolerari … habet] necesse est tolerare G 944 quod] om. R 945 per … facilius]penitenciam G 946 mee … 947 eciam] uice R 947 scribere … karissime] incutere R | uel1 … aliud] illas abalio G 948 ubi … extractas] nisi forte alicui iam extractas inueneris G | forte … nisi] forsitan necesse est G949 dictum] predictum G 950 Penitencie … secundum] qualiter enim ad iniungendum penitencie dicunturarbitrarie et nisi hoc uideas hoc esse necessarium idest utile quia uix inueniretur qui canonicas uellet suscipereuel auderet non sunt arbitrarie id est ad uoluntatem sacerdotis maiores aut minores quomodo uoluerintiniungende ita quod uterque liberatus tam penitens quam sacerdos set ad G 951 facto] officio G | iuste] om.G 952 eum] cum R 953 fit] om. R | adiuuante] intimante G | est ut] om. G 955 sit] fit G | uigiliis … 959tribulatorum] etc R 960 quandoque2] om. R | et2] uel G 961 legumina … quandoque3] om. G

238

eciam uinum cum omnibus hiis et quandoque sine hiis et quandoque extra sacietatem

et pauperibus reseruando, quandoque eciam in elemosina uel aliquo persequencium

remittatur, quandoque precipitur uterque ad noctem, quandoque usque ad uesperas,

quandoque usque ad nonam uel eciam meridiem, si necesse fuerit. 965

Oracio quandoque ore, quandoque corde, uel tantum cogitando et petendo et

desiderando quod uidetur orandum. Elemosine in operibus misericordie supradictis

et, quando res non suppetunt, motu pietatis in pauperes et egentes moueri, orando

pro eis et uoluntate impendendi beneficium, si suppeterent facultates. Vigilie addicio /fol. 232vb

ad Dei seruitium in ecclesia, in domo, in lecto, extra lectum, quandoque in tota nocte 970

dormitur extra lectum uel in lecto uestitus. Discipline cum uirgis uel corrigia per se et

in communi, quandoque in priuato loco et, si locum non habeat spoliandi, eleuatis

uestibus ab uno latere et eo flagellato, post eodem modo alterum flagelletur, et hoc

semel uel bis uel ter in ebdomada uel in mense uel anno. Genuflexiones uel in loco

priuato uel in ecclesia fiant. 975

Quando de hiis uel aliquo horum supranominatorum, quantum Spiritus sanctus

dictauerit, iniunctum fuerit penitenti, dicatur ei quod si totum hoc non fecerit uel

propter impotenciam uel propter loci uel temporis importunitatem uel propter

societatis scandalum deuitandum uel alia de causa, si non alias elemosinis redimat uel

restituat, et saltem illud quod fecerit iniungat ad penitenciam iniciandum, et oret 980

Deum ipse penitens ut suam penitenciam uel in hoc seculo uel in futuro concedet ei

perficere. Et sic dicatur ei quod sit paratus ad illam libenter ut Deus uoluerit uel hic

uel in purgatorio peragendam.

967 supradictis] JOHN OF KENT, Summa, 3.845-56

962 eciam] om. R | et1 … quandoque2] om. G | extra] citra G 963 eciam … aliquo] elemosina alio Rpersequencium … 964 uterque] sequencium commutatur precipitur ieiunium uel usque G 964 quandoque2]uel G 965 quandoque usque] uel G | eciam] om. R | fuerit] est G 966 uel] om. G | cogitando] et add. Get1 … et2] petendo R 967 Elemosine … operibus] elemosinam G 968 et1] om. R | et2 … moueri] om. R969 uoluntate] uoluntatem R | impendendi] in eis add. G | facultates] facultatem R | addicio] om. G970 ad … seruitium] om. R | in2 … nocte] et orandum eciam in domo extra lectum quanoque eciam in lectosedendo ad orandum quandoque eciam G 971 uestitus] uestibus non exutis G | Discipline] disciplinare Gcum … corrigia] om. R | et … 972 communi] om. G 972 quandoque … 973 hoc] om. R 974 uel1] om. Rbis] uel ter add. R | Genuflexiones] genues R | uel5 … 975 fiant] in ecclesia uel in priuato R 976 Quando … 980 iniciandum] quando autem de iniunctis societate aut alia causa impeditur ita quod non fecerit dicatur eiquod elemosinis alio modo redimat R 981 uel1] om. R | ei] om. R 982 quod] ut G | libenter ut] prout G

239

Si enim quantulumcumque agat, hic non erit ita transgressor pro residuo. Nec tu ita

teneris ex quo expectacioni purgatorii se committerit. Ita dicatur ei consulendo, non 985

iniungendo, quod nitatur ad perficiendum hoc quantum poterit et ab asperitate

purgatorii sibi caueat. Iniungantur autem pro penitencia ei quecumque alia bona

fecerit, non dico que facere poterit, uel quecumque mala pro intencione penitencie uel

honore Dei uel amore sustinuerit pacienter. Tandem sese recipiant tam sacerdos quam

penitens in participacione spirituali et memoria, tam in oracionibus quam ceteris 990

suffragiis in uinculo caritatis.

Amen. Explicit.

984 quantulumcumque] quantulamcumque G 985 committerit] committit G | Ita] item G | consulendo non]consuetudeo R 986 nitatur … 987 autem] sibi ab asperitate purgatorii et ut hic peragat quantum potestiniungatur R 988 uel1] et G 989 uel] et G | pacienter] et add. G 990 in participacione] participante Rceteris] aliis G 991 in … caritatis] om. R 992 Amen Explicit] explicit summa de confessione G

240

APPENDIX A

This appendix provides a transcription of Emmanuel College, Cambridge MS 83 (C), folios 200r

– 209v. This includes all the sections of John of Kent’s Summa de penitencia, but not the

interspersed passage from Innocent III’s De sacro altaris mysterio (PL 217.872), which interrupts

the text on folios 202v-204v. The purpose of this transcription is to enable comparisons with the

edited text (book 1, chapters 23-5). The allegationes and other passages found only in C are

enclosed by angle brackets < >. There are several large notes written by the same scribe in the

margins. These have been transcribed and included in the apparatus criticus, along with any

emendations. I have introduced modern punctuation, but otherwise retained the orthography

and other features of the manuscript. The folio number is placed in the margin, and a forward

slash is placed within the text at the point when the folio changes.

The apparatus fontium includes the material sources and the modern forms of the original

allegationes.1 There are several references to the council of Lateran IV, but as was typical of the

period, this council is referred to as Lateran II.2 The original allegationes are abbreviated forms

that typically refer either to Gratian’s Decretum or one of the first three Compilationes antiquae.

Decretals are usually introduced with the word ultra.3 The abbreviated forms of the allegationes

have been expanded with the exception of the following:

c. = canon

C. = Causa (from part two of the Decretum)

D./Di. = Distinctio (from part one of the Decretum)

d./di. = Distinctio (from part three of the Decretum)

De con. = De consecratione (from part three of the Decretum)

q. = Questio (from part two of the Decretum)

1 For an extended discussion on the medieval and modern forms of legal citation, see Brundage, Medieval

canon law (London: Longmans, 1995), 190-242. 2 See Cheney, “The Numbering of the Lateran Councils of 1179 and 1215,” in Medieval Texts and Studies

(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973), 203-208. 3 In the manuscript this appears as ult with a curled line overtop the t.

241

De Eukaristia et quid sit eius substantia et a quibus tractanda secundum magistrumf. 200r

Iohannem de ****

De Eukaristia sciendum quod ad hoc quod conficiatur exigitur ex necessitate: ordo

sacerdocii et materia panis triticei, non alterius grani. <In concilio Laterani ii. c. 1.>

Sicut illud: nisi granum frumenti et cetera. <De con. di. ii. Cum in sacramentorum.> Nec 5

etiam farina sufficeret nisi formata in panem. <De con. d. ii. c. ii.> Sic nec uua nisi

exprimatur in uinum. <De eodem; c. Didiscimus; Cum omne.> Usus etiam de panno

intincto lauando reprobatur cum distinctione, scilicet si sit ibi humor uel non sit. Item

ex acceto non conficitur quia non habet proprietates substanciales uini, cum sit

substancialiter frigidum, uinum uero calidum. Similiter non credo confici si tantum 10

admisceatur de aqua ut uere possit dici istud non est uinum. / Sed tantillum aquef. 200v

debet apponi ut absorbeatur a uino, et tutius ut sit uinum rubeum quam album

propter similitudinem sanguinis coloris, et quia sepe accidit aquam pro uino albo

infundi et statutum est in synodo Parisius et Rothomogensis.

Exigitur ergo materia uini cum necessitate et aque secundum quosdam, tamen si non 15

apponatur aqua, dicunt quidam quod uinum transsubstanciatur. <De con. di. ii. c. ii;

et c. Cum omne.> Precipue si ex obliuione sit omissa, non ut heresis introducatur. <De

con. di. ii. Scriptura.> Quod si aqua offertur sine uino, non fit transsubstantiatio quia

sanguis rubricauit aquas baptismi sed non econuerso et principaliter exiuit sanguis a

latere Christi, non / aqua. Vera tamen exiuit aqua non flegma, <ut probatur interius.f. 201r 20

De celebratione misse. In quadam.> sicut multi mentiti sunt. Similiter, si quis hodie

celebrat ex fermentato, non auderem dicere quod non conficeret, presertim si ex

negligentia. Nam Greci hoc facere dicuntur. Forma uerborum quam Christus instituit

de substantia est et grauiter peccat qui addit uel minuit, transponit uel mutat aliquid

de forma, maxime si heresim intendit inducere, quamuis secundum philosophum et 25

nomina et uerba transposita idem significent: nec utile per inutile uiciatur.

4 In … 1] Conc. Lat. IV, c.1 5 De … sacramentorum] D.2 de con. c.1 6 De … ii2] D.2 de con. c.2 7 De … omne] D.2 de con. c.5-7 14 synodo … Rothomogensis] MANSI, 22.682; cfr IBID., 22.897-924 16 De … 17omne] D.2 de con. c.2, 7 17 De … 18 Scriptura] D.2 de con. c.3 21 De … quadam] X 3.41.8 (Comp. III,3.33.7) 23 Forma … 26 uiciatur] INN. III, De sac. alt. mys. (PL 217.869)

12 tutius] titius Ca.c. 21 mentiti] martiti C | Similiter] de eo qui celebrat ex fermentato add. C in marg.

242

<De uino pretermisso in consecratione nescienter.>

Quod si post consecrationem uinum cognoueris pretermissum, si potes sine scandalo,

appone uinum et reincipe uerba consecrationis ab eo loco, Simili modo. <Secundum

Lanfrancum.> Si autem sit / ibi scandalum plurimorum, apposito uino panemf. 201v 30

consecratum, sicut in die Parasceues, debes inmittere sicque sumere sacrificium.

<Innocentius in Summa.> Nondum enim est ecclesie reuelatum an in tali casu, maxime

cum non sit ex certa scientia consecretur panis sine uino. Alii dicunt tutius esse quod

talis hostia detur alicui qui credatur ad hoc idoneus. Sin autem reseruetur seorsum

donec post missam et tunc sumatur a sacerdote ipso post sumptionem consuetam. 35

Noua uero hostia ponatur sicut fieri solet ante calicem et reincipiatur canon misse ad

Te igitur. Sic docuisse dicitur Maurus Parisiensis episcopus. /

<Item magister Iohannes de Cautia a quibus tractandum est hoc sacramentum.>

Sacramentum hoc non nisi a mundis tractandum est. Unde si pollutio proueniat ex

crapula cum turpi imaginatione et motu, prohibet in crastino et a perceptione et a 40

confectione. Si sine, tunc a confectione tantum. Si ex precogitatione, prohibet ab

utroque. <Di. vi. Testamentum.> Istud tamen non possunt tenere sacerdotes

parrochiales soli in necessitate, ut propter sollempnitatem et funus. <Ultra. De /

celebratione misse. De homine.> In quo casu etiam si sit in mortali, potius debetfol. 204v

conterens celebrare quam populum scandalizare. Item potius debet conterens 45

celebrare quam simulare se celebrare cum non celebret. Excommunicatus et

suspensus, ut fornicator notorius, si celebret, celebratum est, tamen missam eius

nullus audire debet. <Di. xxxii. Nullus; Preter titulus. De uita et honestate clericorum.

Vestra duxit.> Quid autem sit notorium supra dicetur.

29 Secundum … 30 Lanfrancum] locum non inueni, fort. LANF. De cor. et sang. Dom. (PL 150.407-442)32 Innocentius … Summa] INN. III, De sac. alt. mys. (PL 217.873) 33 Alii … 37 episcopus] PET. PICT., Comp.praes., XXXVIII 47 eius … 51 sacerdos] C.7 q.1 c.16 | Di … Testamentum] D.6 c.1 | De … 44 homine] X3.41.7 (Comp. III, 3.33.6) 48 Di … 49 duxit] D.32 c.5; X 3.2.7 (Comp. II, 3.1.1) 49 supra dicetur] JOHN OFKENT, Summa, 1.738-46.

31 sicut] addidi 37 episcopus] hic addit C textum longum ex Innocentio III 39 nisi a] tr. Ca.c.

243

Si sacerdos secundam missam celebret et quibus danda sit Eucharistia. Capitulum 24. 50

Si sacerdos secundam missam celebrare debet ea die post sumptionem sanguinis,

consilio meo nichil sumat. <Ultra. De celebratione misse. Ex parte.> Quod si sacerdos

quocumque casu cepta misteria complere non possit, reuestiat se alius et incipiat ubi /

ipse dimisit. <C. vii q. i. Nichil.> Ita tamen quod, si facta sit interruptio in uerbisfol. 205r

dominicis, totum incipiat quod est de substantia. Si uero sic accidat in ordinibus, 55

totum a capite reincipiendum est ab alio episcopo, quia ibi nescitur quid sit de

substantia. Caueat tamen sacerdos quantum potest ne duas missas celebret eodem die

nisi summa necessitate, puta propter funus. <Ultra. De celebratione misse.

Consuluisti; De con. d. ii. Sufficit.> Sed nec propter speciales et priuatas missas debet

officium diei intermittere. <Preter titulus, De celebratione missarum, Quidam. 60

Quibus dandum est hoc sacramentum.>

Restat uidere quibus dandum est et sciendum quod suspendendis, si exigant et

conterantur, non est deneganda Eukaristia secundum canones et in hoc multi, si

peniteant et petant, concordant. <C. xiii. c. ulterius.> Tamen quia ecclesia / non habetfol. 205v

hoc in usu, emulandus est usus: credat igitur et manducet. <De con. di. ii. Ut quid.> Sed 65

nec sepultura talibus conceditur. <C. xxiii. q. v. Placuit.> Quia cui unum sacramentum

negatur et alia. <Di. xcv. Illud.> Speciale tamen in torneatoribus qui si ibi moriuntur

uiaticum habebunt, sepultura tamen carebunt. <Extra. De torneamentis. c. i. et ii.>

Histrionibus autem lecatoribus et meretricibus non est danda Eukaristia etiam in die

Pasche propter honorem ecclesie. <De con. d. ii. Pro dilectione.> Nisi conuertantur. 70

<De con. di. ii. Scenicis.> Aliis autem peccatoribus non notoriis, si in publico petant,

non potest negari. Monere debet tamen sacerdos occulte ne sumant. <Di. eadem. Non

prohibeat.> Ego tamen, si scirem petentem aliquid magnum, inde facturum non

52 De … parte] X 3.41.5 (Comp. III, 3.33.4) 54 C … Nichil] C.7 q.1 c.16 58 De … 59 Sufficit] X 3.41.3(Comp. III, 3.33.1); D.1 de con. c.53 60 Preter … Quidam] X 3.41.2 (Comp. II, 5.22.2) 64 C … ulterius]C.13 q.2 c.30 65 De … quid] D.2 de con. c.47 66 C … Placuit] C.23 q.5 c.12 67 Di … Illud] D.95 c.368 De … ii] X 5.13.1 (Comp. I, 5.11.1); X 5.13.2 (Comp. II, 5.7.1) 70 De … dilectione] D.2 de con. c.9571 De … Scenicis] D.2 de con. c.96 72 Di … 73 prohibeat] D.2 de con c.67

51 celebrare] addidi | sanguinis] diuisorum sententia de tempore consecrationis add. C in marg. 57 duas]om. Ca.c. 64 habet] qui Ca.c.

244

porrigerem sed potius caute illuderem. / Alii contra. Similiter si scirem pro certo uelfol. 206r

uehementer presumerem quod incontinenti post susceptionem uomeret, non 75

porrigerem sed monerem credere et manducaret. <De con. di. Ut quid.> Grauiter

infirmanti qui glutire non potest, paruissimam porciunculam porrigo uel in uino uel

sine uino. <C. xxvi. q. vi. Is qui. In fine.>

De pueris qui non intelligunt quid accipiunt, puta infra septennium, michi uidetur

sanius non dare eis, licet quidam contra per quoddam decretum. <De con. di. ii. 80

Presbiter Eukaristia.> Quod dicit pueris dandam Eukaristiam. Sed littera que ibi

inseritur calumpniam habet, non enim est in multis decretis. Idem de furiosis dicerem

sed timeatur de deiectu. Alioquin communicandi sunt si ante furorem hoc petieriunt.

<C. xxvi. / q. vi. Qui recedunt et cetera. Is qui in infirmitate.> Neque enim hocfol. 206v

sacramentum tale est sine quo non sit salus nisi contempnenti. 85

Quis dare possit Eukaristiam et de casibus qui circa hoc sacramentum contingunt.

Presbiter per se ipsum communicet infirmum. <De con. di. ii. Peruenit.> Nisi in

summa necessitate et tunc potest per diaconum. <Di. xciii. Diacones propriam.> Sed

tunc caueat [sacerdos] diaconus ne nuda manu Eukaristiam tangat, sed uel super

patenam ponat uel aliquem pannum interponat. Idem dicunt de subdiacono. 90

Secundum Cantorem nullus se ipsum communicare debet nisi celebret. Unde in

mortis periculo potius a diacono, si presens sit, communicet quam sibi sit actor. Quod

si non sit, non credo peccare si accipiat cum timore. Quod si celebret et non

communicet, per / annum a communione suspenditur. <De con. di. ii. Relatum.>fol. 207r

Similiter grauiter delinquit conficiens qui corpus sine sanguine sumit. <Di. eadem. 95

Comperimus.>

76 De … quid] D.2 de con. c.47 78 C … qui] C.26 q.6 c.8 80 De … 81 Eukaristia] D.2 de con. c.93 84 C … recedunt] C.26 q.6 c.7 87 De … Peruenit] D.2 de con. c.29 88 Di … propriam] D.93 c.13 90 Idem dicunt]cfr D.23 c.26; D.50 c.68 91 Secundum Cantorem] PET. CANT. Sum. de sacr. 3.15 (appen. IV, 663) 94 De … Relatum] D.2 de con. c.11 95 Di … 96 Comperimus] D.2 de con. c.12

76 manducaret] emendaui cum Inn. III, compareat C | tractandum] tandum Ca.c. | supra] infra C | De … missarum] de uen. sco. C | hoc] huius C | Histrionibus] de histrionibus, lecatoribus et meretricibus add. C inmarg. | Scenicis] concenicis C | Grauiter] de grauiter infirmantibus add. C in marg. 79 De] de pueris add.C in marg. 82 Idem] de furiosis add. C in marg. 93 Quod] de celebrante et non communicante add. C inmarg.

245

In mortis articulo potius decederem sine uiatico quam acciperem de manu heretici.

<C. i. q. i. Superueniente; xxiiii. q. i. Si quis dederit.> Secus est de baptismo. <xxxii di.

uerum.> Cotidie autem communicare nec laudo nec uitupero. <De con. di. ii. Cotidie

et cetera; et Si non.> Tamen consilio meo ter in annum communicandum, scilicet 100

Pascha, Pentechosten et Natali, uel saltem in Pascha, alioquin non habetur pro

Christiano. <In concilio Laterani ii. Omnis utriusque.> Nec est abstinendum a

communione nisi pro mortali peccato.

<De periculis circa hoc sacramentum contingentibus.>

Restat de periculis que circa hoc sacramentum contingunt, et primo notandum quod si 105

per negligentiam aliquid de / sanguine stillauerit super terram, lingua lambetur afol. 207v

ministro, locus radatur et igne consumatur, et cinis infra altare condatur, et sacerdos

xl diebus peniteat et non celebret. Si super altare nudum stillauerit, sorbeat minister

stillam et tribus diebus peniteat, nec celebret, quos intelligo in pane et aqua

infligendos et cum alia aliqua penitentia. Si usque ad secundum lintheum altaris stilla 110

peruenerit, quatuor diebus; si usque ad tertium, ix; si usque ad quartum, xxx, et

linthea perfecte abluantur, calice supposito et prima aqua sumatur, alie iuxta altare

recondantur. Hoc totum dicitur in decretis. <De con. di. ii.

Si per negligentiam aliquod de sanguine Christi stillauerit in terra, lingua lambetur,

tabula radetur, si fuerit ta-/-bula, ut non conculcetur locus conradatur et ignefol. 208r 115

consumatur et cinis intra altare condatur et sacerdos xl dies peniteat. Si super altare

stillauerit calix, sorbeat minister stillam et iii dies peniteat. Si super lintheum altaris et

ad aliud stilla peruenerit, iiii dies peniteat. Si usque ad tertium, ix dies peniteat. Si

98 C … dederit] C.1 q.1 c.72; C.24 q.1 c.41 | xxxii … 99 uerum] D.4 de con. c.32 99 De … 100 non] D.2 decon. c.13; c.15 102 In … utriusque] Conc. Lat. IV, c.21 113 De … ii] D.2 de con. c.27

99 Cotidie1] quociens communicandum est add. C in marg. 108 xl] xv secundum quosdam add. C in marg.et] dupl. C 114 Si] si stillauerit super terram add. C in marg. | Si … negligentiam] In hoc capitulo dicitqualiter debeat puniri presbiter uel minister si per negligentiam eorum aliquid de sanguine Christi stillaueritsuper terram uel super altare. In terram, id est super tabulam positam in terra. Lambetur, scilicet sanguis utpatet in capitulo. Sed numquid cadendo sacramentum cecidit ibi corpus et sanguis Christi? Dic quod sic ettamdiu credas esse ibi quamdiu ibi apparuerint accidentia et remaneant ibi. Sed accidentia non habent pondus.Qualiter ergo dicuntur cadere cum non habeant pondus. Sed dic quod ponderositas ad hoc remanet cumaccidentibus suis, et tamen nichil est ibi ponderosum lintheum. Sed per temeritatem sumentis sumatur incalice. Et infra si turpe in calicem cadit, non teneor accipere. add. C in marg. [cfr Gl. ord. ad D.2 de con. c.26v. in terram] 116 Si] si super altare add. C in marg. 117 Si] si super lintheamina add. C in marg.

246

usque ad quartum, xxx dies peniteat et lintheamina que tetigerint stillam tribus

uicibus minister abluat calice subposito et aqua ablutionis sumatur et iuxta altare 120

recondatur.>

Hodie tamen multi excindunt particulam linthei ubi stilla cecidit et in thechis ponunt

pro reliquiis reliqua parte resarcita et in usus pristinos remanente. Quod si super

corporalia ceciderit, integra cum reliquiis reponantur, prius tamen lauentur et aqua

sumatur. 125

<Si palla altaris / inde intincta fuerit, recidenda est illa particula et pro reliquisfol. 208v

seruanda. Si super casulam uel super albam deguttat, similter fiat. Si super aliud

quodcumque uestimentum deguttat, comburenda est pars illa et cinis in sacrario

reponendus. Si uero in terram ceciderit, ungendus et tergendus et radendus est locus

ille, siue lapis siue lignum siue terra, et puluis sacro loco reponendus.> 130

Si quis per ebrietatem Eukaristiam uomuerit, xl dies peniteat. <D. eadem. Si quis per

ebrietatem uel uoracitatem Eukaristiam euomuerit, xl dies peniteat. Clerici uel

monachi uel diaconi siue presbiteri, lxx dies peniteant. Episcopi xx.> Si pro infirmitatis

causa euomuerint, vii dies peniteant. <Istud uomitum quidam iudicant

comburendum.> / Nos consulimus ut si forme aliquid supersit resumatur.fol. 209r 135

Si musca uel aranea in sanguine ceciderit, sumatur sanguis. Post loto uermiculo

sumatur ablutio semel uel bis, deinde uermis ponatur in sacrario. Sunt quidam magne

fidei qui cum sanguine pariter sumunt quicquid incederit. Audiuimus de quodam

episcopo magno qui scienter hausit uenenum cum sanguine propinatum et mortuus

est. Ego numquam temptarem Deum, dummodo rationabili consilio haberem quid 140

facerem. <C. xxii. q. ii. Cum patriarcha.>

131 D eadem] D.2 de con. c.28 136 Si … 141 facerem] GER. WAL., Gem. Eccl. I, 44 141 C … patriarcha]C.22 q.2 c.22

123 Quod] si super corporalia add. C in marg. 126 Si] si super pallam add. C in marg. 127 Si2] de aliisuestimentis add. C in marg. 129 Si] si stillauerit in terram add. C in marg. 131 Si1] de uomentibuseukaristiam per ebrietatem add. C in marg. | eadem] puto, e C 133 Si] Hoc ad cautelam positum est. xxxiiii.q. ii. In lectum [C.34 q.2 c.6]. Vel quia non debuit sumere cum esset infirmus et infra fuit in culpa arguit ff. adlegem Aquilonis. Idem iuris. § multitudinem [D. 9.2.8, 1]. Alter infirmitas excusat arguit di. u. Ad eiustestimonium [D.5 c.6]. add. C in marg. [cfr Gl. ord. ad D.2 de con. c.28 v. poeniteat] 136 Si] si musca uelaranea inciderit add. C in marg. 138 Audiuimus] narratio add. C in marg.

247

Eukaristia inueterata igne comburenda est et cinis iuxta altare sepeliendus, ut dicitur

in consilio Arelianensis, c. v. Idem si uermis inueniatur ibi ut ibi dicitur.

Si ceciderit terratenus sacramentum, / ut non conculcetur locus, quicquid ibifol. 209v

inuentum fuerit comburatur et cinis ut supra abscondatur et cui accidit medium 145

annum peniteat, si non inuentum fuerit sacrificium. Si inuentum fuerit, xx dies.

143 in … v] cfr BURCH., Decr. 5.50 (PL 140.762)

142 Eukaristia] quid agendum sit de hostia inueterata add. C in marg. 144 Si] si ceciderit super terram add.C in marg.

248

BILBIOGRAPHY

Primary sources

Acta Stephani Langton Cantuariensis Archiepiscopi A.D. 1207-1228. Edited by K. Major. Oxford:

Oxford University Press, 1950.

Alan of Lille. Liber poenitentialis. Edited by J. Longere. Louvain: Éditions Nauwelaerts, 1965.

Angelo Carletti di Chivasso. Summa angelica. Strasbourg, 1515.

Anselm of Lucca. Collectio canonum. Edited by F. Thaner. Innsbruck: Library of the

Wagnerian Academy, 1906. Reprint, Aalen: Scientia Verlag, 1965.

Antoninus Florentinus. Summa sacrae theologiae, iuris pontificii, et caesarei. 4 vols. Venice,

1571.

Astesanus de Asti. Summa de casibus conscientiae. Rome, 1728.

Bartholomew of Exeter. Liber pastoralis siue poenitentialis. In Bartholomew of Exeter:

bishop and canonist, a study in the twelfth century with the text of Bartholomew’s

penitential from the Cotton ms. Vitellius A. xii, edited by D. Morey. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1937.

Bernard of Pavia. Summa decretalium. Regensburg: Joseph Manz, 1860.

Biblia latina cum glossa ordinaria. Strasbourg, 1480. Reprint, Turnhout: Brepols, 1992.

Burchard of Worms. Decretum. In Das Dekret des Bischofs Burchard von Worms:

Textstufen, frühe Verbreitung, Vorlagen, edited by H. Hoffmann and R. Pokorny.

München: Monumenta Germaniae Historica, 1991.

Chronicon Abbatiae Rameseiensis. Edited by W. D. Macray London: Longman, 1886.

Corpus iuris canonici. Edited by E. Friedberg. 2 vols. Leipzig: Bernhard Tauchnitz, 1879–1881.

Corpus iuris canonici una cum glossis. Rome, 1582.

Councils and synods, with other documents relating to the English Church. Edited by F. M.

Powicke and C. R. Cheney. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964.

Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils. Edited by N. Tanner. 2 vols. Washington: Georgetown

University Press, 1990.

249

Eccleston. De adventu fratrum minorum in Angliam. Edited by A. G. Little. Manchester:

Manchester University Press, 1951.

English episcopal acta III: Canterbury 1193-1205. Edited by C. R. Cheney and E. John. Oxford:

Oxford University Press, 1986.

Ivo of Chartres. Decretum. In Ways of mercy: the prologue of Ivo of Chartres, edition and analysis,

edited by B. Brasington. Münster: LIT Verlag, 2004.

John of Erfurt. Summa confessorum. Edited by N. Brieskorn. 3 vols. Frankfurt: Lang, 1980.

John of Freiburg. Summa confessorum. Lyons, 1518.

Hostiensis. Summa aurea. Venice, 1574.

Huguccio. Summa decretorum, Tom. 1: Distinctiones I-XX. Edited by O. Pterovsky. Monumenta

iuris canonici. Series A: Corpus Glossatorum 6. Vatican City: Vatican Library, 2006.

Innocent III. The letters of Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) concerning England and Wales. Edited

by C. R. Cheney and M. G. Cheney. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967.

Matthew Paris. Chronica majora. Edited by H. R. Luard. 7 vols. London: Longman, 1872-83.

Medieval handbooks of penance. A translation of the principal ‘Libri poenitentiale’ and selections

from related documents. Edited and translated by J. T. McNeill and H. Gamer. New

York: Octagon Books, 1965.

Pastors and the care of souls in medieval England. (A reader of medieval pastoralia) Edited by J.

Shinners and W. J. Dohar. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1998.

Peter the Chanter. Summa de sacramentis et animae consiliis. Edited by J. A. Dugauqier. 3 vols.

Louvain: Éditions Nauwelaerts, 1954-67.

Peter the Chanter. Verbum abbreviatum. PL 205: 23-370.

Peter Lombard. Sententiae in IV libris distinctae. 3rd ed. 3 vols. Rome: Editiones Collegii S.

Bonaventurae ad Claras Aquas, 1971-1981

Peter of Poitiers. Summa de confessione. Edited by J. Longère. Turnholt: Brepols, 1980.

Prefaces to canon law books in Latin Christianity: selected translations, 500-1245. Translated by R.

Somerville and B. Brasington. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988.

250

Quinque compilationes antiquae. Edited by E. Friedberg. Leipzig: Bernhard Tauschnitz, 1882.

Reprint, Graz: Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt, 1956.

Raymond of Penyafort. Summa de penitentia. Edited by X. Ochoa and A. Diez. Farnborough,

England: Gregg, 1976.

Regino of Prüm. De ecclesiasticis disciplinis. PL 132: 185-400.

Ricardus Anglicus. Distinctiones Decretorum. Edited by G. Silano. PhD dissertation.

University of Toronto, 1982.

Robert Courson. Summa de penitentia. In “Robert Courson on Penance,” edited by V. L.

Kennedy. Mediaeval Studies 7 (1945): 291-336.

Robert of Flamborough. Liber poenitentialis: a critical edition with introduction and notes. Edited

by J. J. F. Firth. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1971.

Robert Grosseteste. De modo confitendi et paenitentias iniungendi. In “The early penitential

writings of Robert Grosseteste,” edited by J. Goering and F. A. C. Mantello.

Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 54 (1987): 52-112.

Robert Grosseteste. Templum Dei. Edited by J. Goering and F. A. C. Mantello. Toronto:

Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1984.

Rufinus. Summa decretorum. Edited by H. Singer. Paderborn, 1902. Reprint, Aalen: Scientia

Verlag, 1963.

Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio. Edited by G. D. Mansi. 32 vols. Venice, 1759.

Summa ‘Elegantius in iure diuino’ seu Coloniensis. Edited by G. Fransen and S. Kuttner. New

York: Fordham University Press, 1969.

The Beauchamp cartulary, 1100-1268. Edited by E. Mason. London: Ruddock & Sons, 1980.

The Irish Penitentials. Edited by L. Bieler. Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies,

1963.

Thomas of Chobham. Summa confessorum. Edited by F. Broomfield. Louvain: Éditions

Nauwelaerts, 1968.

William de Montibus. (miscellaneous pastoralia). In William de Montibus: The Schools and the

Literature of Pastoral Care, edited by J. Goering. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of

Mediaeval Studies, 1992.

251

Secondary sources

Asztalos, M. “The faculty of theology.” In A history of the university in Europe, vol. 1, edited

by H. de Ridder-Symoens, 409-440. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ault, W. “The village church and the village community in medieval England.” Speculum 34

(1970): 197-215.

Austin, G. “Jurisprudence in the service of pastoral care. The Decretum of Burchard of

Worms.” Speculum 79 (2004): 929–59.

Baldwin, J. W. Masters, princes and merchants: The social views of Peter the Chanter and his circle.

Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1970.

Bale, J. Scriptorum illustrium maioris Brytanniae, quam nunc Angliam et Scotiam uocant,

catalogus. 2 vols. Basel: Johannes Oporinus, 1557.

Bédier, J. "La tradition manuscrite du Lai de l’Ombre. Réflexions sur l’art d'éditer les

anciens textes." Romania 54 (1928): 161–96; 321–56.

Bell, D., ed. The libraries of the Cistercians, Gilbertines and Premonstratensians. London: The

British Library, 1992.

Bernard, E., ed. Catalogi librorum manuscriptorum Angliae et Hiberniae in unum collecti. Oxford:

Sheldon Theatre, 1697.

Biller, P. and A. J. Minnis, eds. Handling sin: confession in the Middle Ages. York: York

Medieval Press, 2013.

Bird, J. “The construction of orthodoxy and the (de)construction of heretical attacks on

the Eucharist in pastoralia from Peter the Chanter’s circle at Paris.” In Texts and the

repression of medieval heresy, edited by C. Bruschi and P. Biller, 45-62. Suffolk: York

Medieval Press, 2003.

Blair, J., ed. Minsters and parish churches: the local church in transition: 950-1200. Oxford: Alden

Press, 1988.

Blair, J. and R. Sharpe, eds. Pastoral care before the parish. Leicester: Leicester University

Press, 1992

Bloomfield, M. Incipits of Latin works on the virtues and vices, 1100-1500 A.D. Cambridge:

Medieval Academy of America, 1979.

252

Bloomfield, M. The seven deadly sins: an introduction to the history of a religious concept, with

special reference to medieval English literature. East Lansing, MI.: Michigan State

College Press, 1952.

Bossy, J. “The social history of confession in the age of the Reformation.” Transactions of the

Royal Historical Society 25 (1975): 21-38.

Boureau, A. “How law came to the monks: the use of law in English society at the

beginning of the thirteenth century.” Past and Present 167 (2000): 29-74.

Boyle, L. A study of the works attributed to William of Pagula with special reference to the Oculus

sacerdotis and Summa summarum. 2 vols. D. Phil dissertation. Oxford University, 1956.

Boyle, L. “Canon law before 1380.” In The early Oxford schools, vol. 1 of The history of the

university of Oxford, edited by J. I. Catto, 531-64. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984.

Boyle, L. Pastoral care, clerical education and canon law, 1200 – 1400. London: Variorum

Reprints, 1981.

Boyle, L. “Summae confessorum.” In Les genres littéraires dans les sources théologiques et

philosophiques médiévales. Définition, critique et exploitation. Actes du colloque

international de Louvain-la-Neuve, 25-27 mai 1981, 227-37. Leuven: Catholic University

of Leuven, 1982.

Boyle, L. “The beginnings of legal studies at Oxford.” Viator 14 (1983): 107-31.

Boyle, L. “The date of the Summa praedicantium of John Bromyard.” Speculum 48 (1973):

533–37.

Boyle, L. “The Fourth Lateran Council and manuals of popular theology.” In The popular

literature of medieval England, edited by T. J. Heffernan, 30-43. Knoxville: University

of Tennessee Press, 1985.

Boyle, L. “The inter-conciliar period: 1179-1215 and the beginnings of pastoral manuals.” In

Miscellanea Rolando Bandinelli Alessandro III, edited by F. Liotta, 45-56. Siena:

Accademia senese degli intronati, 1986.

Boyle, L. “The Summa confessorum of John of Freiburg and the popularization of the moral

teaching of St. Thomas and some of his contemporaries.” In St. Thomas Aquinas

1274–1974: commemorative studies, edited by M. Armand, 245-68. Toronto: Pontifical

Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1974.

253

Boyle, L. “The Summa for confessors as a genre and its religious intent.” In The pursuit of

holiness, edited by C. Trinkaus and H. A. Oberman, 103-26 Leiden: Brill, 1974.

Boynton, S. and D. Reilly, eds. The practice of the Bible in the Middle Ages: production,

reception, & performance in Western Christianity. New York: Columbia University

Press, 2011.

Brecht, M. Martin Luther. Translated by J. Schaaf. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1993.

Brett, M. “Finding the Law: the sources of canonical authority before Gratian.” In Law before

Gratian: law in Western Europe, c. 500–1100. Proceedings of the third Carlsberg academy

conference on legal history, edited by P. Andersen, M. Münster-Swendsen and H.

Vogt, 51-72. Copenhagen: DJØF Publishing, 2007.

Brooke, C. “English episcopal acta of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.” In Medieval

ecclesiastical studies in honour of Dorothy M. Owen, edited by M. J. Franklin and C.

Harper-Bill, 41-56. Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer, 1995.

Brown, Jason Aaron. St Antonin of Florence on Justice in Buying and Selling: Introduction,

Critical Edition, and Translation. PhD dissertation. University of Toronto, 2018.

Brundage, J. A. “A twelfth century Oxford disputation concerning the privileges of the

Knights Hospitallers.” Mediaeval Studies 24 (1962): 153-60.

Brundage, J. A. “Legal learning and the professionalization of canon law.” In Law and

learning in the Middle Ages, edited by H. Voge and M. Münster-Swendsen, 5-28.

Copenhagen: DJØF Publishing, 2006.

Brundage, J. A. Medieval canon law. London: Longman, 1995.

Brundage, J. A. “The crusade of Richard I: Two canonical quaestiones.” Speculum 38 (196):

443-52.

Brundage, J. A. “The medieval battle of the faculties: theologians v. canonists.” In Canon law,

religion, and politics: liber amicorum Robert Somerville, edited by U. Blumenthal, A.

Winroth and P. Landau, 272-283. Washington: Catholic University of America Press,

2012.

Brundage, J. A. The medieval origins of the legal profession: canonists, civilians, and courts.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008.

Brundage, J. A. The profession and practice of medieval canon law. Ashgate: Variorum, 2004.

254

Brundage, J. A. “The treatment of marriage in the Questiones Londinenses (MS Royal

9.E.VII).” Manuscripta 19 (1975): 86-97.

Campbell, W. The landscape of pastoral care in 13th-century England. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 2018.

Campbell, W. J. “Theologies of reconciliation in thirteenth-century England.” Studies in

Church History 40 (2005): 84-94.

Carley, J. P., ed. The libraries of King Henry VIII. Vol. 7 of CBMLC. London: The British

Library, 2000.

Cheney, C. R. Hubert Walter. London: Nelson, 1967.

Cheney, C. R. “King John and the papal interdict.” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 31

(1948): 295-317.

Cheney, C. R. “La date de la composition du Liber poenitentialis attribué à Pierre de

Poitiers.” Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 9 (1937): 401–404.

Cheney, C. R. “The numbering of the Lateran Councils of 1179 and 1215.” In Medieval texts

and studies, 203-208. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973.

Cornett, M. The form of confession: a later medieval genre for examining conscience. PhD

dissertation. University of Chapel Hill, 2011.

Coxe, H. O. Catalogue of the manuscripts in the Oxford colleges, with an introduction by K. W.

Humfreys Wakefield: E. P. Publishing, 1972.

Coxe, H. O. Catalogus codicum MSS. qui in collegiis aulisque Oxoniensibus hodie adservantur.

12 vols. Oxford, 1852.

Cushing, K. “Anselm of Lucca and Burchard of Worms: re-thinking the sources of Anselm

11, de penitentia.” In Ritual, text and law. studies in medieval canon law and liturgy

presented to Roger E. Reynolds, edited by K. Cushing and R. Gyug, 225-39. Aldershot:

Ashgate Variorum, 2004.

Cushing, K. Papacy and law in the Gregorian revolution. The canonistic work of Anselm of Lucca.

Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Derolez, A. The palaeography of gothic manuscript books from the twelfth to the early sixteenth

century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

255

Dictionnaire d'histoire et de géographie ecclésiastiques. 31 vols. Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1912.

Diem, A. “Virtues and vices in early texts on pastoral care.” Franciscan Studies 62 (2004):

193–223.

Duggan, C. Decretals and the creation of "new law" in the twelfth century: judges, judgements,

equity, and law. Aldershot: Ashgate Variorum, 1998.

Duggan, C. Twelfth-century decretal collections and their importance in English history. London:

The Athlone Press, 1963.

Emden, A. B. A biographical register of the University of Oxford to A.D. 1500. 3 vols. Oxford:

Clarendon Press, 1958.

Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages. Edited by A. Vauchez et al. Cambridge: James Clarke, 2000.

Ferme, B. Introduction to the history of the sources of canon law: The ancient law up to the

Decretum of Gratian. Translated by W. J. King. Montreal: Wilson & Lafleur, 2007.

Fierey, A., ed. A new history of penance. Leiden: Brill, 2008.

Firth, F. J. J. “The Poenitentiale of Robert of Flamborough.” Traditio 16 (1960): 541-556.

Foster, C. W. and K. Major, eds. The registrum antiquissimum of the cathedral church of

Lincoln. Vol. 2. Hereford: Lincoln Record Society, 1933.

Fournier, P., E. Maignien and A. Prudhomme. Catalogue général des manuscrits des

bibliothèques publiques de France. Vol. 7: Grenoble. Paris: 1889.

Frantzen, A. The literature of penance in Anglo-Saxon England. New Brunswick: Rutgers

University Press, 1983.

Frantzen, A. “The penitentials attributed to Bede.” Speculum 58 (1983): 573–97.

Friis-Jenson, K. and J. M. W. Willoughby, eds. Peterborough abbey. Vol. 8 of CBMLC. London:

The British Library, 2001.

Gaastra, A. Between liturgy and canon law. A study of books of confession and penance in eleventh-

and twelfth-century Italy. PhD dissertation, University of Utrecht, 2007.

Ginther, J. R. “Grazing in many fields and drinking bitter water: Robert Grosseteste’s

theology of the pastoral care.” In A companion to pastoral care in the late Middle Ages

(1200-1500), edited by R. J. Stansbury, 95-122. Leiden: Brill, 2009.

256

Goering, J. “Leonard E. Boyle and the invention of pastoralia.” In A companion to pastoral

care in the late Middle Ages: 1200 – 1500, edited by R. Stansbury, 7-22. Boston: Brill,

2010.

Goering, J. “Pastoralia: the popular literature of the care of souls.” In Medieval Latin: an

introduction and bibliographical guide,” edited by F. A. C. Mantello and A. G. Rigg,

670-76. Washington: The Catholic University of America Press, 1996.

Goering, J. “The changing face of the village parish: the thirteenth century.” In Pathways to

medieval peasants, edited by J. A. Raftis, 323-333. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of

Mediaeval Studies, 1981.

.

Goering, J. “The scholastic turn (1100-1500): penitential theology and law in the schools.” In

A new history of penance, edited by A. Firey, 219-238. Leiden: Brill, 2008.

Goering, J. “The Summa de penitentia of John of Kent.” BMCL 18 (1988): 13–31.

Goering, J. “The Summa of Master Serlo and thirteenth-century penitential literature.”

Mediaeval Studies 40 (1978): 290-311.

Goering J. “The Summa Qui bene present and its author.” In Literature and religion in the later

Middle Ages, edited by R. Newhauser and J. Alford, 143-60. Binghampton: Medieval

and Renaissance Texts and Studies, 1995.

Goering, J. “The thirteenth-century English parish.” In Educating people of faith: exploring the

history of Jewish and Christian communities, edited by J. van Engen, 208-222. Grand

Rapids, MI.: Eerdmans, 2004.

Greenway, D. E., ed. St. Paul’s, London. Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae. Vol. 1: 1066-1300.

London: Athlone Press, 1968.

Gunn, C. and C. Innes-Parker, eds. Texts and traditions of medieval pastoral care: essays in honor

of Bella Millet. Woodbridge: York Medieval Press, 2009.

Hamilton, S. The practice of penance, 900-10150. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2001.

Haring, N. “The interaction between canon law and sacramental theology in the twelfth

century.” In Proceedings of the fourth international conference of medieval canon law.

Toronto. Aug. 21-25 1972, edited by S. Kuttner, 483-93. Vatican City: Biblioteca

Apostolica Vaticano, 1976.

257

Hartmann W. and K. Pennington, eds. The history of medieval canon law in the classical period,

1140-1234: from Gratian to the decretals of Pope Gregory IX. The History of Medieval

Canon Law, vol. 6. Washington: The Catholic University of America Press, 2008.

Heyworth, M. “The late Old English handbook for the use of a confessor: authorship

and connections.” Notes and Queries 54 (2007): 218–22.

Hunt, R. W. “The manuscript collection of University College, Oxford.” In The Bodleian

library record, vol. 3, 13-33. Oxford: Charles Bately, 1951.

James, M. R., ed. Lists of manuscripts formerly in Peterborough Abbey library. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1921.

James, M. R. The Western manuscripts in the library of Emmanuel College. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1904.

Johnson, M. “Paul of Hungary’s Summa de penitentia.” In From learning to love: schools,

law, and pastoral care in the Middle Ages: essays in honour of Joseph W. Goering, edited by

T. Sharp et al., 402-18. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2017.

Kennedy, V. L. “Robert Courson on penance.” Mediaeval Studies 7 (1945): 291-336.

Kirsch, P. A. “Der sacerdos proprius in her abendländischen Kirche vor dem Jahre 1215.”

Archiv für katholisches Kirchenrecht 84 (1904): 527-37.

Klepper, D. C. “Pastoral literature in local context: Albert of Diessen’s mirror of priests on

Christian-Jewish coexistence.” Speculum 93 (2017): 692-723.

Klumpenhouwer, S. “The deaconess: new sources in medieval pastoralia.” Logos 21 (2018):

15-35.

Körntgen, L. “Canon law and the practice of penance: Burchard of Worms’ penitential.”

Early Medieval Europe 14 (2006): 103–17.

Kuttner, S. and E. Rathbone. “Anglo-Norman canonists of the twelfth century: an

introductory study.” Traditio 7 (1949-1951): 279-358.

Kuttner, S. Gratian and the schools of law, 1140-1234. London: Variorum, 1983.

Kuttner, S. “Pierre de Roissy and Robert of Flamborough.” Traditio 2 (1944): 492-9.

Kuttner, S. The history of ideas and doctrines of canon law in the Middle Ages. London:

Variorum, 1980.

258

Kuttner, S. “The father of the science of canon law.” Jurist 1 (1941): 2–19.

Landau, P. “Alttestamentliches Recht in der Compilatio Prima und sein Einfluss auf das

kanonische Recht.” Studia Gratiana 20 (1976): 113-133.

Langholm, O. The merchant in the confessional. Brill: Boston, 2003.

Larson, A. “Gratian’s Tractatus de penitentia: a textual study and intellectual history.” PhD

dissertation. Catholic University of America, 2010.

Larson, A. Master of penance: Gratian and the development of penitential thought and law in the

twelfth century. Washington: Catholic University of America, 2014.

Larson, A. “The evolution of Gratian’s Tractatus de penitentia.” BMCL 26 (2004–6): 59–123.

Larson, A. “The reception of Gratian’s Tractatus de penitentia and the relationship between

canon law and theology in the second half of the twelfth century.” Journal of religious

history 37 (2013): 457-73.

Latham, R. E., ed. Dictionary of medieval Latin from British sources. London: Oxford University

Press, 1975-.

Lea, H. C. A history of auricular confession and indulgences in the Latin church. Philadelphia:

Lea Brothers & Co., 1986.

Lee, B. The purification of women after childbirth in medieval England. PhD dissertation.

University of Toronto, 1998.

Le Goff, J. The birth of purgatory. Translated by A. Goldhammer. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press, 1984.

Leland, J. De uiris illustribus: On famous men. Edited and translated by J. Carley. Toronto:

Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2010.

Maas, P. Textual criticism. Translated by B. Flower. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1958.

Matthew, H. C. G. and B. Harrison, eds. Oxford dictionary of national biography. Toronto:

Oxford University Press, 2004.

Mews, C. J. “Law, theology, and praxis ca. 1140-1380: new approaches to the study of law

and theology in medieval Europe.” Journal of Religious History 37 (2013): 435-440.

259

Michaud-Quantin, P. Sommes de casuistique et manuels de confession au Moyen Âge (XII-XVI

siècles). Louvain: Nauwelaerts, 1962.

Meens, R. Penance in medieval Europe, 600 – 1200. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

2014.

Meens, R. “The historiography of early medieval penance.” In A new history of penance,

edited by A. Firey, 73-95. Leiden: Brill 2008.

Miller, T. Place names in the English Bede and the localisation of the MSS. Strasbourg: Trübner,

1896.

Muller, W. “The internal forum of the Later Middle Ages. A modern myth?” Law and

History Review 33 (2015): 887-913

Murchison, K. A. “The effects of the seven sins. A critical edition.” The annual of the

association for documentary editing 38 (2017): online resource, http://scholarly-

editing.org/2017/editions/sevensins/intro.html.

Murray, A. “Confession as a historical source in the thirteenth century.” In The writings of

history in the Middle Ages: essays presented to Richard William Southern, edited by R. H.

C. Davies and J. M. Wallace-Hadrill, 275-322. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981.

Murray, A. “Confession before 1215.” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 3 (1993): 51-

81.

Murray, J. “Gendered souls in sexed bodies.” In Handling sin: confession in the Middle Ages,

edited by P. Biller and A. J. Minnis, 79-93. York: York Medieval Press, 1998.

Murray, J. “The absent penitent.” In Women, the book, and the godly, edited by L. Smith and J.

Taylor, 13-25. Cambridge: Brewer, 1995.

Newhauser R. and I. Bejczy, A supplement to Morton W. Bloomfield et al.: incipits of Latin works

on the virtues and vices, 1100-1500 A.D. Turnhout: Brepols, 2008.

Noonan, J. T. “Gratian slept here: the changing identity of the father of the systematic study

of canon law.” Traditio 35 (1979): 145-72.

Palliser, D. M. “Introduction: the parish in perspective.” In Parish, church and people: local

studies in lay religion 1350-1750, edited by S. J. Wright, 5-28. London: Hutchinson,

1988.

Pasquali, G. Storia della tradizione e critica del testo. Florence: Felice le Monnier, 1934.

260

Payer, P. Sex and the new medieval literature of confession, 1150–1300. Toronto: University of

Toronto Press, 2009.

Pennington, K. “Summae on Raymond de Pennafort’s Summa de casibus in the Bayerische

Staatsbibliothek, Munich.” Traditio 27 (1971): 471-80.

Pennington, K. “The Fourth Lateran Council, its legislation, and the development of legal

procedure,” In Texts and contexts in legal history: essays in honor of Charles Donahue,

edited by J. Witte, Jr., S. McDougall and A. di Robilant, 179-198. Berkeley: Robbins

Collection, 2016.

Pits, J. Relationes historicae de rebus Anglicis. Paris: Rolinus Thierry and Sebastianum

Cramoisy, 1619.

Pounds, N. J. G. A history of the English parish: the culture of religion from Augustine to Victoria.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Rangeard, P. Histoire de l'université d'Angers. Angers: E. Barassé, 1872.

Richardson, H. G. “The parish clergy of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries.”

Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 6 (1912): 88-128.

Rider, C. “Lay religion and pastoral care in thirteenth-century England: the evidence of a

group of short confession manuals.” Journal of Medieval History 36 (2010): 327-40.

Rider, C. Magic and impotence in the Middle Ages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.

Rider, C. “Women, men, and love magic in late medieval English pastoral manuals.”

Magic, Ritual and Witchcraft 7 (2012): 190-211.

Robertson, D. W. “Frequency of Preaching in Thirteenth-Century England.” Speculum 24

(1949): 376-88.

Rodes, R. E. Ecclesiastical administration in medieval England: the Anglo-Saxon to the

Reformation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1977.

Russell, J. C. Dictionary of writers of thirteenth-century England. London: Longman, 1936.

Sayers, J. E. Papal judges delegate in the province of Canterbury: 1198-1254: A study in

ecclesiastical jurisdiction and administration. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971.

Schulte, J. F. von. Geschichte der Quellen und Literatur des canonishen Rechts. 2 vols. Stuttgart:

Verlag Ferdinand Enke, 1875. Reprint, Graz: ADEVA, 1956.

261

Sharpe, R. A handlist of the Latin writers of Great Britain and Ireland before 1540. Belgium:

Brepols, 1997.

Sharpe, R., J. P. Carley, R. M. Thomson and A. G. Watson, eds. English Benedictine libraries:

The shorter catalogues. Vol. 4 of CBMLC. London: The British Library, 1996.

Silano, G. “Of sleep and sleeplessness.” In The religious roles of the papacy: ideals and realities

1150-1300, edited by C. Ryan, 343-362. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval

Studies, 1989.

Silano, G., trans. The Sentences of Peter Lombard. 4 vols. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of

Mediaeval Studies, 2007-2010.

Stansbury, R. J. “Preaching and pastoral care in the thirteenth century.” In A companion to

pastoral care in the Late Middle Ages (1200-1500), edited by R. J. Stansbury, 23-40.

Leiden: Brill, 2009.

Tanner, T. Bibliotheca Britannico-Hibernica. London: Gulielmus Bowyer, 1748.

Teetaert, A. “Le Liber poenitentialis de Pierre de Poitiers.” In Aus der Geisteswelt des

Mittelalters, edited by A. Land, J. Lechner, M. Grabmann and M. Schmaus, 310-331.

Münster: Aschendorff, 1935.

Tentler, T. “The Summa for confessors as an instrument of social control.” In The pursuit of

holiness in late medieval and renaissance religion, edited by C. Trinkhaus and H.

Oberman, 103-22. Leiden: Brill, 1974.

Thomas, H. The secular clergy in England, 1066-1216. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.

Thomas. J., ed. Ecloga Oxonio-Cantabrigiensis tributa in libros duos. London: Arnold Harfield,

1600.

Timpanaro, S. The genesis of Lachmann's method. Edited and translated by G. Most. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press, 2005.

Ullmann, W. Jurisprudence in the Middle Ages. London: Variorum Reprints, 1980.

Ullmann, W. “The Bible and principles of government in the Middle Ages.” Settimane di

Studio del Centro Italiano di Studi sull’ Alto Medioevo 10 (1963): 183-227.

Ullmann, W. “A forgotten dispute at Bridlington Priory and its canonistic setting.” In The

Church and the law in the earlier Middle Ages, XVI: 456-473. London: Variorum, 1975.

262

van Engen, J. H. “From practical theology to divine law: the work and mind of medieval

canonists.” In Proceedings of the ninth international congress of medieval canon law,

Munich, July 13-18, 1992, edited by P. Landau and J. Mueller, 873-96. Vatican City:

Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1997.

Vauchez, A. “The Church and the laity.” In The new Cambridge medieval history, vol. 5: c. 1198

– c. 1300, edited by D. Abulafia, 182-203. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

2008.

Vogel, C. Medieval liturgy: An introduction to the sources. Translated and revised by W.

Storey and N. Rasmussen. Washington: Pastoral Press, 1986.

Wadding, L. Scriptores Ordinis Minorum. Rome: 1650,

Wagner, K. “Cum aliquis venerit ad sacerdotem: penitential experience in the central Middle

Ages.” In A new history of penance, edited by A. Firey, 201-218. Leiden: Brill, 2008.

Wagner, K. De vera et falsa penitentia: An edition and study. PhD dissertation, University of

Toronto, 1995.

Warner, G. W. and J. P. Gilson. Catalogue of Western manuscripts in the Old Royal and King’s

Collections. Oxford: 1921.

West, M. Textual criticism and editorial technique applicable to Greek and Latin texts. Stuttgart:

Teubner, 1973.

Winroth, A. “Neither slave nor free: theology and law in Gratian’s thoughts on the

definition of marriage and unfree persons,” in Medieval church law and the origins of

the Western legal tradition: a tribute to Kenneth Pennington, edited by W. Müller and M.

Sommar, 97-109. Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 2006.

Winroth, A. The making of Gratian’s Decretum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

2000.

Winroth, A. “The teaching of law in the twelfth century.” In Law and learning in the Middle

Ages: proceedings of the second Carlsberg academy conference on medieval legal history,

2005, edited by H. Vogt and M. Münster-Swendsen, 41-61. Copenhagen: Djork, 2006

Winroth, A. “Where Gratian slept: the life and death of the father of canon law.” ZRG 100

(2014): 106-28.