Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T21:45:16.076Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

English Canonists and the ‘Appendix Concilii Lateranensis’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 July 2017

Charles Duggan
Charles Duggan*
Affiliation:
King's College, University of London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The formative role of the Appendix Concilii Lateranensis in the development of twelfth-century decretal collections is already familiar to historians of canon law. This important collection begins in its vulgate edition with the canons of the Lateran Council of 1179, followed by forty-nine titles, which, with the exception of the final two, are systematic in technical style. The collection as preserved in the editio princeps, based by B. Laurens on a manuscript now lost, was built up in a series of successive stages, the basic work being completed within the limits c. 1181–5, and the final form including material as late as 1188–90. But the concluding title in this editio princeps, or vulgate edition, is not discovered in any of the surviving Appendix manuscripts, and has been shown by Holtzmann to depend on an excerpt from the lost register of Alexander III. It must be assumed, therefore, that this title had no place in the original collection, but was a special supplement to the manuscript on which Laurens based his edition, being discovered elsewhere only in the material at the end of Orielensis I, a related work. Since the collection in its earliest version (c. 1181–5) was the fountainhead of the main tradition of decretal transmission, its provenance and authorship are clearly of historical interest.

Type
Institute of Research and Study in Medieval Canon Law Bulletin for 1962
Information
Traditio , Volume 18 , 1962 , pp. 459 - 468
Copyright
Copyright © 1962 New York, 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 The text is in Crabbe, P., Concilia omnia tam generalia quam particularia II (2nd ed. Cologne 1551) 836–944; Mansi, J.-D., Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio 22.248–454; etc. See also Friedberg, , Canonessamlungen 63–84; Amanieu, A., ‘Appendix Concilii Lateranensis,’ DDC 1 (1935) 833-41; Kuttner, S., Repertorium der Kanonistik 290-1, including a critical bibliographical report on relevant work by Seckel, E., Heyer, F., Juncker, J., and others; Holtzmann, W., ‘Die Register Papst Alexanders III. in den Händen der Kanonisten,’ Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken 30 (1940) 13–87; idem, ‘Über eine Ausgabe der päpstlichen Dekretalen des 12. Jahrhunderts,’ Nachrichten Akad. Göttingen (1945) 23; idem and Kemp, E. W., Papal Decretals Relating to the Diocese of Lincoln (Lincoln Record Society; 1954) xiii; etc. For generous advice in preparing this paper, I am much indebted to Professor Stephan Kuttner, and for information kindly given at an earlier stage my thanks are due to Dr. Eleanor Rathbone.Google Scholar

2 Holtzmann, , Quellen und Forschungen 18ff.; idem and Kemp, , op. cit. xiii-xiv.Google Scholar

3 Ibid. xiv.Google Scholar

4 Cf. Kuttner, S. and Rathbone, E., ‘Anglo-Norman Canonists of the Twelfth Century,’ Traditio 7 (1951) 283–4.Google Scholar

5 Van Hove, A., Prolegomena 352.Google Scholar

6 Holtzmann, , Quellen und Forschungen 16 n. 1 and 18ff.; idem, ‘Die Benutzung Gratians in der päpstlichen Kanzlei im 12. Jahrhundert,’ Studia Gratiana 1 (1953) 332; idem and Kemp, , op. cit. xiii.Google Scholar

7 Kuttner, and Rathbone, , art. cit. 283-4.Google Scholar

8 Cf. Friedberg, , Canonessammlungen 21–6 and 71–84.Google Scholar

9 The English primitive collections are discussed in my Twelfth-Century Decretal Collections and their Importance in English History (University of London, Athlone Press, 1962); for the ‘Worcester’ family, see ibid. 95–110.Google Scholar

10 Duggan, , ‘The Trinity Collection of Decretals and the Early Worcester Family,’ Traditio 17 (1961) 506–13.Google Scholar

11 Lohmann, H., ‘Die Collectio Wigorniensis,’ ZRG, Kan. Abt. 22 (1933) 36–187, esp. 45-8.Google Scholar

12 Decretals or chapters in the ‘Worcester’ archetype but not in Appendix: Wig. 1.3a.II, 12, 40, 41b, 42 and 43; 2.1.II, 3, 6, 13d-f, 19 and 21; 3.6, 12b, 13, 14a, 16a.I and 19; 4.5, 8, 12, 13, 16a, 17, 20a and 24; 5.2; 6.1a; 7.1–8, 11b, 14, 15, 18, 20-3, 25, 26, 27d-f and 1, 44a, 59 and 61. All other items are found in both collections.Google Scholar

13 Decretals or chapters supplementary to the archetype in Wig. but not in Appendix: Wig. 1.45 and 48; 2.25.I, 31b, 32, 33, 34 and 36; 3.34, 38 and 40; 4.34, 39, 41-6 and 48–50; 7.55, 64, 66, 67 and 70–80.Google Scholar

14 Items listed by Lohmann in Wig. and Appendix only: Wig. 1.34a; 2.25.II, 30 and 37; 3.26, 27, 30, 31b-c, 32, 33 and 35; 4.25b, 28, 29, 31, 32, 36-8, 40 and 47; 7.65. In addition, the following items are listed in Wig. Claustr. and Appendix only: Wig. 1.2, 4, 7, 11, 30, 35, 41a and 44; 2.9, 10a, 11, 12, 15, 17, 20 and 24; 3.9, 22, 24, 25, 28, 36 and 39; 4.2, 4, 6, 7, 9–11, 15, 19, 25a and 35; 5.10 and 13; 6.3 and 4; 7.9, 11a, 12, 13, 17, 24, 32, 34-9, 42, 43, 45, 46, 53, 58, 62 and 63. But no direct interconnection existed between the Worcester Collection in its completed form and the Appendix: the items listed in nn. 12 and 13, above, reveal a significant element in the Worcester Collection unknown to the author of the Appendix. Google Scholar

15 Friedberg, , Canonessammlungen 65 and 110 n. 1. For the English background, see Foreville, R., L'Eglise et la Royauté en Angleterre sous Henri II Plantagenet (Paris 1943) 48–60, 64–76 and 276–326.Google Scholar

16 Friedberg, , Canonessammlungen 110, Bamb. 48.Google Scholar

17 Lincoln Cathedral MS 121, fols. 1–61; Holtzmann, and Kemp, , op. cit. xiii.Google Scholar

18 Lincoln MS 121, fols. 58v-61. The Cottonian Collection is B. M. Cotton MS Vit. E. XIII, fols. 204-88; the Peterhouse Collection is distributed in binding folios in Peterhouse, Cambridge, MSS 114, 180, 193 and 203; cf. Holtzmann, and Kemp, , op. cit. xii–xiii; see also n. 19, below.Google Scholar

19 Tanner is Oxford Bodl. MS Tanner 8; Holtzmann, , ‘Die Dekretalensammlungen des 12. Jahrhunderts: 1. Die Sammlung Tanner,’ Festschrift zur Feier des 200jährigen Bestehens der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Phil.-Hist. Kl. (1951) 83–145. Typical of late additions common to all four collections mentioned here is the decretal Prudentiamtuam, JL 17019, Jun. 17, 1193: Lincoln, MS 121, fol. 58v; Cott. Vit. E. XIII, fol. 286v; Pet. MS 203, final quire, fol. 2rb; Tanner, App. 1: Holtzmann, , Sammlung Tanner 143.Google Scholar

20 The Lincoln MS is sometimes unusually full and accurate in its decretal inscriptions, including such clear forms as Giseburne, Bridlingtun, Rameseia, Lichesfeld, Frethesvide, Oseneia and so forth; but in many instances Laurens' edition is better or more complete. A report on the Lincoln MS will be published later.Google Scholar

21 James, M. R., Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library of St John's College Cambridge (Cambridge 1913) 182–3.Google Scholar

22 Knowles, D. and Hadcock, R. N., Medieval Religious Houses: England and Wales (London 1953) 116. The place-name Stratford is found so frequently that this attribution is speculative; cf. Ekwall, E., Oxford Dictionary of English Place-names (Oxford, 1947 ed.) 428.Google Scholar

23 James, , op. cit. 182-3; Cowie, M., Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts and Scarce Books in the Library of St John's College Cambridge (Cambridge Antiquarian Society 6; 1842) VI.Google Scholar

23a On the sequence of canons of the Third Lateran Council, see Kuttner, , Traditio 13 (1957) 505–6, notes from an unpublished dissertation by W. Herold (Bonn 1950).Google Scholar

24 Redolet Anglia and Ex antiqua are in the Cottonian Collection: B. M. Cott. MS Vit. E. XIII, fols. 246r and 283r; Redolet Anglia is also in the ‘Cheltenham’ Collection: B. M. Egerton MS 2819, fol. 93va. This letter is in fact included in one member of the ‘English’ family: Belverensis, Oxford Bodl. MS e Mus. 249, fol. 131v, but addressed to the prelates, clergy, and people of England, and in a sequence of decretals peculiar to that work.Google Scholar

25 Juncker, J., ‘Die Collectio Berolinensis: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des kanonischen Rechts in ausgehenden zwölften Jahrhundert,’ ZRG Kan. Abt. 13 (1924) 284–426.Google Scholar

26 Parisiensis I : Friedberg, , Canonessammlungen 45–63; Aureaeuallensis : Holtzmann, , ‘Beiträge zu den Dekretalen-Sammlungen des 12. Jahrhunderts,’ ZRG Kan. Abt. 16 (1927) 77–115. See Comparative Table (b), below.Google Scholar

27 Dertusensis : Holtzmann, , Beiträge 39–77. See Comparative Table (b), below.Google Scholar

28 Dertus. 58, 54 and 52; cf. Holtzmann, , Beiträge 39–54 and Analysis 42–61. See also Comparative Table (b), below.Google Scholar

29 Comparative Table (c), below. For Tanner, see Holtzmann, , Sammlung Tanner; for Sangermanensis and Abrincensis , Singer, H., ‘Neue Beiträge über die Dekretalensammlungen vor und nach Bernhard von Pavia,’ Sb. Akad. Wien 171.1 (1913) 68–400; for Brugensis , Friedberg, , Canonessammlungen 136–170; cf. Holtzmann, and Kemp, , op. cit. xiv-xv. Information on the Vatican MS of the Brugensis was kindly supplied by Professor Kuttner. The decretals Redolet Anglia and Ex antiqua are also found in the systematic Francofortana, B. M. Egerton MS 2901, fols. 93v-94r.Google Scholar

30 For Bambergensis, see Friedberg, , Canonessammlungen 84–115; and Deeters, W., Die Bambergensisgruppe der Dekretalensammlungen des 12. Jahrhunderts (Bonn 1956).Google Scholar

31 Stubbs, W., ed. Radulfi de Diceto Opera omnia: Ymagines historiarum 1 (Rolls Series, 1876) 369, 440 and 310.Google Scholar

32 Kuttner, , Repertorium 273–6.Google Scholar

33 Ibid. 274–5: Montecassino MS 64, 333.Google Scholar

34 Cf. Friedberg, , Canonessammlungen 41 and 64. See Comparative Table (d) Part II, below.Google Scholar

35 Comparative Table (d) Part III. below. The correspondence of App. 2.7, 9 and Bamb. 4.2, 3 does not appear from Friedberg's analysis, where by contamination of two chapters 4.2. is omitted; cf. Seckel, F., rev. of Friedberg, Canonessammlungen, in Deutsche Literaturzeitung (1897) 664; Deeters, , op. cit. 58.Google Scholar