Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-cphqk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-15T18:49:10.821Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Third Part of Stephen of Tournai's Summa

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2016

Stephan Kuttner
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Institute of Research and Study in Medieval Canon Law: Bulletin for 1958
Information
Traditio , Volume 14 , 1958 , pp. 502 - 505
Copyright
Copyright © Fordham University Press 

Access options

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

References

1 Schulte, , ed. cit. pp. viii-x.Google Scholar

2 Details and bibliographical references in Kuttner, Repertorium 133–6; brought up to date in this Bulletin, Traditio 11 (1955) 440–41; 12 (1956) 563; 13 (1957) 469.Google Scholar

3 The MS is misbound (not noted in Maier, A.'s catalogue): quire v (fol. 51–58) follows quire vi instead of iv (fol. 35–42).Google Scholar

4 Cf. Traditio 1 (1943) 280 n.10, 282 n.20; the information in Bulletin 1955, p. 440 is incomplete. Google Scholar

5 Schulte p. iv, where the beginning on fol. 118r after the second lacuna is misprinted as ‘dict. ad c.10 c.35 [read: 36] q.2.’ In Trad. 11.440 the shelfmark of the MS is misprinted as 11403. Google Scholar

6 Schulte pp. v-vi: fragment of the introduction, to the words ‘quarta de lauacro baptismatis’ (= Rufinus p. 538 lin. 13 ed. Singer) and De cons. D.4 c.31 - D.5 c.38 v. ‘ex mulierum ua///’ (= p. 570 lin. 8 from the bottom). Google Scholar

7 Cf. Schulte p. iv. Google Scholar

8 Ed. cit. ix; Singer's opposition (Rufinus p. li n.28) is hardly justified.Google Scholar

9 Ed. cit. x, under e and f; more inconsequential observations p. ix, a-c. The final argument (p. x), ‘zumal die Berliner Handschrift des Stephanus Namen trägt,’ is misleading: the inscription appears of course at the head of pt. I, not pt. III.Google Scholar

10 Schulte's reading of the passage, both in QL I 135 and ed. cit. p. 273, is garbled, as already Denifle, in Archiv für Literatur- und Kirchengeschichte des Mittelalters 1 (1885) 609 and Gietl, A. in AKKR 67 (1892) 434 observed; cf. also Singer, H., in AKKR 69 (1893) 403n. The masters cited are Peter Lombard, Robert of Melun, Achard of St. Victor ‘post episcopus’ (bishop of Avranches 1161–1171, d. March 29), and Adam of Petitpont.Google Scholar

11 Schulte, , ed. cit. xi-xiii points out that the siglum appears only in some of the MSS and that its interpretation is mostly doubtful.Google Scholar

12 Schulte, QL I 136 n. 10; ed. cit. 188 n.4. This raises the question whether the glosses on the Summa in this MS, which were studied by Thaner, F. in Sb. Akad. Vienna 79 (1875) 211ff., may not belong to the English rather than the French school. For one gloss referring to St. Thomas Becket cf. Kuttner-Rathbone, “Anglo-Norman Canonists …,’ Traditio 7 (1949–51) 285 n.5.Google Scholar

13 Printed in part in ed. cit. 191 n.1. Google Scholar

14 The interpolated passage is printed ibid. from the Mainz and Leiden MSS. Unfortunately both the edition and the apparatus are quite misleading at this crucial point. (1) Since Schulte 191 n.1 gives variants only for 5 of the 7 MSS which he asserts (p. xxv) to have fully collated, one might be lead to believe that his text here (pp. 190–92) is based on the two remaining MSS; actually it reproduces the isolated readings of the single Munich lat. 17162, which Schulte elsewhere (pp. xii, xxv) declares to be partly touched up, partly abridged. (2) What he presents in the apparatus (191 n.1) as an insertion of Paris lat. 3913 and Trier 905 after the words ‘fuerit expoliatus’ (= text p. 192 lin. 2), actually appears in these two MSS instead of the sentence “Quidam (= 191 lin. ult.) tamen … expoliatus,” which is peculiar to Munich lat. 17162 alone. (3) This reading of Paris and Trier, ‘Inducie expectationis … sex menses concedunt,’ is also that of Schulte's seventh MS (Munich lat. 14403, bypassed loc. cit). and should have been in the body of the edition, since he elsewhere treats Paris 3913 as his basic MS. (4) It is attested as the genuine reading by at least 10 MSS, i.e. 6 MSS of group A: Alençon fol. 64vb, Brussels fol. 60va, Milan fol. 47vb, Paris 14609 fol. 37rb, Turin fol. 58vb, Vat. Borgh. fol. 57vb (not collated: Vat. Petr, S. ); and 4 MSS of group B: Munich 14403 fol. 49v, Paris 3913 fol. 60va, 3919A fol. 59va, Trier fol. 51ra (not collated: Salamanca and Worcester). (5) It is into this text that the gloss intruded which cites Stephanus by name (as a comparison of the Mainz-Leiden and Paris-Trier texts in Schulte's note shows): ‘Inducie expectationis sunt que dantur … uenire uolenti, [que heedem dicuntur uocationis secundum Steph, M.’ … jnfra. v. C. q.ii. cap. Presenti.] que a diuersis patribus … concedunt.’ (6) This interpolation is found in 2 MSS of group C: Mainz fol. 52vb (reads ‘m. ste.’), Troyes fol. 52rb–va; and in 3 MSS of group A: Bamberg fol. 190va, Leiden fol. 39va, Paris 3912 fol. 47va. (7) The interpolation in the Berlin MS (fol. 24vb-25ra) has no parallel elsewhere. — I must ask the reader's forgiveness for this long but necessary digression.Google Scholar

15 Schulte, , ed. cit. xxv.Google Scholar

16 Mention should be made here of the description of Gratian's threefold doctrinal purpose in the passage ‘quod omnis iuris ecclesiastici speculatio partim moralis est, partim iudicialis, partim sacramentalis’ (p. 261), for which parallels are found only in French writing; cf. Kuttner, ‘Réflexions sur les brocards des glossateurs,’ Mélanges J. de Ghellinck (Gembloux 1951) 784 (where I failed to locate the text of ‘Stephanus,’ cf. n. 69) for Summa Parisiensis, Summa Antiquiiate et tempore, Sicard of Cremona; one may add the preface of the Summa Coloniensis, the Summula Hactenus on C.2 (text in Gillmann, AKKR 106 [1926] 166n), and the Prologue ‘Videndum que materia’ (Repertorium 184), which proves to be related to Antiquitate et tempore. Google Scholar

17 Mainz contains Antiquitate et tempore; Troyes, after pt. III, the Distinctiones Monacenses (cf. Repertorium 215f.); Berlin, the French (or English, cf. n. 12 supra) glosses on Stephen, writings of Peter of Blois and Peter of Louveciennes (Repert. 222 n. 3, 183), the Summula Sepenumero in iudiciis (ibid. 184 n. 4), which can be shown to belong to the circle of the Summa Inperatorie maiestati, and the Prologue ‘Videndum que materia’ (cf. n. 16 supra). Google Scholar