Paenitentiale Theodori

Paenitentiale Theodori

Folio 2v from the Vienna manuscript, Lat. 2195, showing the decorative title and dedication of the Umbrense version of the Paenitentiale Theodori
Also known as Iudicia Theodori, Canones Theodori, Discipulus Umbrensium, Canones Gregorii, Capitula Dacheriana, Canones Cottoniani, Canones Basilienses
Audience Catholic clergy
Language medieval Latin
Date ca. 700
Genre penitential, canon law collection
Subject ecclesiastical and lay discipline; ecclesiastical and lay penance

The Paenitentiale Theodori (also known as the Iudicia Theodori or Canones Theodori) is an early medieval penitential handbook based on the judgements of Archbishop Theodore of Canterbury. It exists in multiple versions, the fullest and historically most important of which is the U or Discipulus Umbrensium version (hereafter the Paenitentiale Umbrense), composed (probably) in Northumbria within approximately a decade or two after Theodore's death. Other early though far less popular versions are those known today as the Capitula Dacheriana, the Canones Gregorii, the Canones Basilienses, and the Canones Cottoniani, all of which were compiled before the Paenitentiale Umbrense probably in either Ireland and/or England during or shortly after Theodore's lifetime.

Background

It is generally accepted by scholars today that Theodore himself is not responsible for any of the penitential works ascribed to him. Rather, a certain associate of Theodore's name Eoda is generally regarded as the point of dissemination of certain judgements proffered by Theodore in an unofficial context and in response to questions put to him by students at his Canterbury school regarding proper ecclesiastical organization and discipline.

Authorship and Structure

Capitula Dacheriana

Scholars have for some time accepted that the Capitula Dacheriana represents the earliest attempt to assemble together Theodorian penitential judgments.[1] The case for the Capitula Dacheriana as an Irish production has been argued most effectively by Thomas Charles-Edwards, who noticed, first, that the Capitula Dacheriana lacks any obvious structural framework. For Charles-Edwards, this feature (or rather lack of a feature) is symptomatic of the non-Roman character of the Capitula Dacheriana, and thus suggests its creation outside of Theodore's immediate circle, and perhaps even outside of the Rome-oriented Anglo-Saxon church.[2] Whether or not this is true, there are other, strong signs that the Capitula Dacheriana was produced in ecclesiastical circles that had rather less connection to Theodore's Canterbury than with Irish and Celtic centres. Specifically, the Capitula Dacheriana has both textual and literary connections with eighth-century Irish and/or Breton canonical activities.

The Capitula Dacheriana is witnessed today by two tenth-century manuscripts produced in Brittany. Ludwig Bieler has shown that the copyists of both manuscripts derived their text of the Capitula Dacheriana from the same eighth-century collection of Irish materials that was still resident in Brittany in the tenth century — a collection that also included (or was at least closely associated with) the Collectio canonum Hibernensis.[3] The A-recension of the Collectio canonum Hibernensis, believed to have been compiled before 725,[4] is the earliest work known to have drawn on the Paenitentiale Theodori tradition, relying on none other than the Capitula Dacheriana version.[5] From this it appears that the Capitula Dacheriana was assembled perhaps as early as a decade after Theodore's death (in 690), and certainly no later than the first quarter of the eighth century. It was very possibly compiled in Ireland (though possibly instead in an Anglo-Irish or Breton milieux), and was used shortly after its creation as a source for the Collectio canonum Hibernensis, which would itself (even very soon after its creation) go on to influence powerfully the developing canon law and penitential traditions in Francia.

Paenitentiale Umbrense

The Paenitentiale Umbrense is a selection of canons from the earlier Capitula Dacheriana, Canones Gregorii, Canones Cottoniani and Canones Basilienses, along with additional Theodorian judgments that were obtained by a mysterious figure named Eoda Christianus. As we learn in the preface to the Paenitentiale Umbrense, these latter judgments were proffered by the Archbishop in answer to questions raised by rulings found in a certain "Irish document" (libellus Scottorum), a work that is commonly believed to be the Paenitentiale Cummeani. All of this material has been arranged by the author of the Paenitentiale Umbrense according to topic, with occasional commentary and additional rulings added in by the author of the Paenitentiale Umbrense himself. The Paenitentiale Umbrense is thus far more organized than its predecessors, and — owing to its contents derived from Eoda and the libellus Scottorum — also includes more content that is strictly "penitential" in nature.

The identity of the author is controversial. In the prologue (or rather dedicatory letter) to the Paenitentiale Umbrense the author identifies himself as a discipulus Umbrensium, "a student of the [North]umbrians". Whether this identifies the authors nationaility, or merely his academic affiliation, is unclear, and several interpretations of its meaning have been advanced. Felix Liebermann believed that the discipulus was an Irish disciple of Theodore,[6] while Paul Finsterwalder argued that the discipulus was a man, Irish-born though trained in Anglo-Saxon schools, who worked on the Continent, probably within the context of Willibrord's Continental mission.[7] A year after they were published Finsterwalder's conclusions were roundly rejected by Wilhelm Levison, who argued that the Paenitentiale Umbrense was the work of an Anglo-Saxon working in England.[8] Scholars since have generally sided with Levison in viewing the Paenitentiale Umbrense as the product of Anglo-Saxon England, and more specifically of a student working in Northumbria.

The Paenitentiale Umbrense survives in two forms: a Full Form and a Half Form. The Full Form is clearly the more original work, the Half Form being simply the last fourteen topics or chapters or the Full Form. The Full Form itself survives in slightly different versions. In the earliest of these the work is divided into twenty-nine chapters (though the Fulda Recension [discussed below] divides the work slightly differently and into twenty-eight chapters).[9] These are:

A later version of the Full Form has these twenty-nine chapters divided into two books, with chapters 1–15 comprising the first book and chapters 16–29 (renumbered as cc. 1–14) comprising the second. Up until recently, scholars had assumed that the two-book version of the Full Form was the original version of the Paenitentiale Umbrense. Accordingly all previous editors (Wasserschleben, Haddan–Stubbs and Finsterwalder) have printed the two-book version, and all previous scholarship has been predicated on the assumption that the author of the Paenitentiale Umbrense created a work divided into two books.[10] Several scholars even claim to have detected a generic division between the two books, noting that many of the subjects covered in the first book (drunkenness, fornication, pagan practices, etc.) are those typically associated with the penitential genre, while many of the subjects in the second book (church administration, ordination, baptism) are those typically dealt with in canon law collections.[11] It has been supposed that this is because the author of the Paenitentiale Umbrense wished to divide the chapters of his source material (i.e. the Capitula Dacheriana and the Canones Greogrii) into those of a penitential nature (= Book I) and those of a canonical nature (= Book II).[12] However, it now seems more likely that the more noticeably penitential nature of the first fifteen chapters is due not to the author's specific desire to front-load his work with exclusively penitential material, but rather to his decision to incorporate into pre-existing collections of Theodorian canons (= the Capitula Dacheriana and the Canones Greogrii) the newly acquired canons obtained from Eoda. As described above, the material that the discipulus had managed to obtain (probably indirectly) from Eoda was based largely on Theodore's responses to rulings found in the Paenitentiale Cummeani. All such material from the Paenitentiale Cummeani is indeed found in chapters 2–14 (~ Book I) of the Paenitentiale Umbrense.[13] The highly "penitential" nature of chapters 2–14 is therefore merely an accident of the discipulus’s decision to treat first those subjects touched on by his Eoda/Paenitentiale Cummeani material, namely the traditionally "penitential" subjects of fornication, theft, manslaughter and marriage. Beyond this there was apparently no attempt on the part of the discipulus to treat "penitential" subjects in the first fifteen chapters and "canonical" ones in the last fourteen. Indeed, the last fifteen chapters (= Book II) treats several subjects aligned strongly with the "penitential" genre, for example food avoidance, marital relations and mental illness, while Book I contains chapters dealing with subjects more commonly associated with canon law collections, namely baptism, heresy, and ordination. Neither do the sources used by the author of the Paenitentiale Umbrense give any indication of a generic division between its first and second halves, for a great many canonical sources (i.e. papal decretals and ancient eastern conciliar canons) are drawn upon in the first half.

It now seems that in its original form the Paenitentiale Umbrense was a twenty-nine chapter work and that the two-book version was a later development.[14] The earliest manuscripts — which also happen to transmit the oldest textual variants — witness to a work divided into twenty-nine chapters, while it is only two later manuscripts — which also contain patently more recent textual variants — in which the Paenitentiale Umbrense appears as a work divided into two books. It is also now clear that the passage from the prologue commonly used to defend to idea that the work was originally divided into two works has been misinterpreted. The prologue runs as follows, with the relevant portion in bold:

A student in Northumbria, humbly, to all catholics in England, particularly to the doctors of souls: salutary redemption in Christ the lord. First of all, I have, dear [brothers], held it a worthy enough thing to lay bare to your Love’s blessedness whence I have gathered the poultices of this medicine which follows, lest (as often happens) through copyists’ decrepitude or carelessness that law [lex] should be left hideously confused which God once, in a figurative way, handed down through his first legislator and ultimately to the Fathers [de secundo patribus] in order that they might make it known to their sons, so that the following generation might learn [of it], namely penance, which the lord Jesus, after being baptized, proclaimed to us, having [as yet] no medicine, as above all the substance [prae omnibus ... instrumentum] of his teaching, saying, 'Do you all penance', etc.; who for the increase of your felicity deigned to guide — from the blessed seat of him [eius, i.e. Peter] to whom it is said 'Whichever things you set free upon the land will be set free also in the heavens' — him [eum, i.e. Theodore] by whom this most helpful salve for wounds would be concocted [temperetur]. 'For I', the apostle says, 'have received from the lord'; and I say, dear [brothers]: with the lord's favour I have received from you even that which I have given to you. Accordingly, the greater part of these [remedies] Eoda the priest, of blessed memory, known to some as 'Christianus', is said (by trustworthy report) to have received under instruction from the venerable master [antestite] Theodore. And these are buttressed [In istorum quoque adminiculum est] by what divine grace likewise delivered to our unworthy hands, [namely] things which the aforementioned man came to learn from a widely known Irish booklet, concerning which the elder [senex] is said to have given this opinion: [that] an ecclesiastic [ecclesiasticus homo] was the author of that book. Many others also, not only men but also women, enkindled by him with an inextinguishable passion for these [remedies], in order to slake their thirst hurried with burning desire to crowd round a person of undoubtedly singular knowledge in our age. Whence there has been found among diverse persons that diverse and confused digest of those rules, composed together with established causes of the second book [Unde et illa diversa confusaque degestio regularum illarum constitutis causis libri secundi conscripta inventa est apud diversos]. On account of which, brothers, through him who was crucified and who by the shedding of his blood confirmed what mighty things he had preached while living, I beg your Love's [pacis] most obliging kindness that, if I have herein perpetrated any misdeed of rashness or negligence, in consideration of the utility of this [work] you defend me before him with the merit of your intercessory prayer. I call upon as witness him, the maker of all things, that in so far as I know myself these things [I] have done for the sake of the kingdom about which he preached. And, as I truly fear, if I do something beyond my talents, yet may the good intentions [benevolentia] of so necessary a work [as this] seek from him pardon for my crimes, with you as [my] advocates — for all of whom equally and without jealousy I labor, insofar as I am able. And from all of those things I have been able to select [invenire] the more useful [topics] and compile them together, placing titles before each. For I trust that these things will draw the attention of those of good soul [bono animo], concerning whom it is said ‘Peace upon the land to people of good will'.

The context makes it obvious that the libri secundi highlighted in bold above refers to nothing other than the Scottorum libellus mentioned several times previously. There is thus no need to suppose, and no evidence to support, that the discipulus composed his work in two books.

The two-book version most likely arose under the influence of the canon law collection known as the Collectio canonum vetus Gallica. As mentioned above, the Paenitentiale Umbrense survives in a Full Form, and in a Half Form. So far as can be determined, the Half Form first arose in Corbie between 725 and 750, when the Vetus Gallica collection was undergoing revision and expansion. Those responsible for revising the Vetus Gallica had not long before acquired a copy of the Paenitentiale Umbrense, which they decided to include in their revised collection. For whatever reason, the Corbie revisers were interested only in the final fourteen canons of the Paenitentiale Umbrense, and it was these canons alone that they included in the appendix to the Corbie redaction of the Vetus Gallica. Thus began the tradition of the Half Form version of the Paenitentiale Umbrense.[15] The Corbie redaction of the Vetus Gallica was very successful and very soon after its creation it was enjoying wide circulation in France, Germany, Bavaria and northern Italy. As a result, far more copies of the Half Form version of the Paenitentiale Umbrense were read and copied — either as part of the Vetus Gallica appendix or as part of derivative canon law collections — than ever were of the stand-alone or Full Form version. The two-book version of the Full Form probably only developed after the Half Form had achieved popularity, that is in the second half of the eighth century or first half of the ninth. Since by then most who knew the Paenitentiale Umbrense knew it only in its Half Form version, someone who happened upon the Full Form (which still circulated, though much less widely than the Half) would likely come to believe that that had found a fuller version of the Paenitentiale Umbrense. And of course they would be right. However, so used would they be to viewing the last fourteen chapters as a discrete unit that they would insist on dividing the newly (re)discovered Full Form into two books, with the first fifteen chapters comprising a welcome new (or seemingly new) addition to the Theodorian corpus, and the last fourteen chapters comprising the already familiar Half Form. They would perhaps also have been helped along in their decision to introduce such division by the mention of a libri secuundi in the newly (re)discovered prologue. Future copies of the now-divided Full Form would preserve the two-book format. Centuries later, similar assumptions would be made by nineteenth- and twentieth-century editors, who come to accept as original the two-book format over the twenty-nine chapter format. In 1851 Hermann Wasserschleben would be convinced by the large number of manuscripts containing the Half Form of the Paenitentiale Umbrense, as well as by a single seventeenth century apograph of MS Cb4 exhibiting the two-book format, that the work must have originally been composed with two distinct parts; he was therefore persuaded to ignore the evidence of his two earliest manuscripts (W7 and W9) and print the Paenitentiale Umbrense with a two-book format.[16] Subsequent editors would base their editions both on the two-book text as established by Wasserschleben and on those manuscripts that were closest or that seemed most ancient to them: these were (for Finsterwalder) MS V5 and (for Haddan–Stubbs) MS Cb4, both of which happen to present the Paenitentiale Umbrense in two books. The textual tradition of the Paenitentiale Umbrense has not been studied closely since the work of Finsterwalder, and so the evidence (or rather the lack thereof) for their assumptions about priority of the two-book format have gone unexamined.

Some copies of the Full Form contain a prologue, while others lack the prologue but contain an epilogue instead. No extant copy contains both the prologue and epilogue, a fact that led Finsterwalder to conclude that the epilogue was not original, but was only a later addition intended to replace the prologue.[17] Wilhelm Levison countered this argument by demonstrating that the prologue and epilogue share remarkably similar style, and therefore must have been composed by the same individual.[18] He also pointed out that the prologue is clearly an original part of the Paenitentiale Umbrense because c. 7.5 of the text refers to it directly; and there is also an oblique yet obvious reference to the prologue in the first sentence of the epilogue.[19] The presence of the prologue and epilogue in some witnesses and not in others can be explained without resorting to hypotheses about different authorship or about the priority of one and the posteriority of the other. Of the six witnesses to the Full Form (Cb4, V5, V6, W7, W9, Wz2), all have the prologue except W9 and V6. V6 is fragmentary and preserves no part of the Paenitentiale Umbrense except the epilogue from eruditis illa onwards,[20] while W9 (as Levison suggested) probably once contained the prologue on a folio (now lost) between fols 1v and 2r (i.e. between the capitulatio and beginning of the text) and this folio has since been cut away.[21] (The copies of the prologue in Cb4 and Wz2 are incomplete: Cb4 due to the loss of a folio, Wz2 due to abbreviation.) W9 and V6 are also the only two witnesses to contain the epilogue; yet, in each of the other four witnesses the absence of the epilogue can be explained. Both Wz2 and V5 are fragmentary at their ends, and so may have once contained the epilogue (it is impossible now to be sure either way); while both Cb4 and W7 have (as Levison pointed out)[22] simply replaced the prologue with copies of the Libellus responsionum so as to make the latter seem like part of the former. It has recently been argued by Michael Glatthaar that because the epilogue refers disparagingly to certain heretical beliefs associated with two of Boniface's most hated opponents — Adalbert and Clemens — it is most likely a later addition by Boniface or someone in his circle.[23] While the very strong arguments put forward by Levison for the originality of the epilogue render Glatthaar's view of the entire epilogue as a Bonifatian document rather unconvincing, there is no reason that Glatthaar's argument could not apply specifically to those parts of the epilogue that discuss the heretical beliefs of Adalbert and Clemens; such discussions are confined entirely to the second half of the epilogue,[24] which in fact reads more like an epistolary dedication than an epilogue, and so may very well be a Bonifatian addition.[25]

The Fulda recension ...

Manuscripts and Transmission

There are numerous extant manuscripts that contain the Paenitentiale Theodori or parts thereof. The following tables divide the extant witnesses into Umbrense versions, non-Umbrense versions, and excerpts. Umbrense versions are further divided into Full Form and Half Form. The sigla given below are based on those established by the Körntgen–Kottje Editionsprojekt for the Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina, vol. 156, a project whose goal is to produce scholarly editions for all major early medieval penitentials; sigla in parentheses are those used by Paul W. Finsterwalder in his 1929 edition.

Umbrense versions

Full Form
Twenty-Nine Chapter Version
Siglum Manuscript Contents
V6 (Vat) Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Pal. lat. 554, fols 1–4 (written first half of ninth century, probably in Lorsch) Paenitentiale Umbrense (fragmentary: epilogue only); excerpts from Augustine, Jerome, Pope Gregory I and Basil (on penance, baptism and continence).
W7 (V) Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Cod. Lat. 2195, fols 2v–46 (written end of eighth century in Salzburg)[26] Paenitentiale Umbrense with preface, prologue and capitulatio but without epilogue (the whole ascribed to 'Pope Saint Gregory' in red uncials on fol. 3r); Libellus responsionum; Paenitentiale Cummeani (preface only)
W9 (W) Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Cod. Lat. 2223 (written beginning of ninth century in the Main river region) Paenitentiale Umbrense without preface and prologue, but with capitulatio and epilogue [which ends abruptly at inminentes]); Paenitentiale Bedae; Paenitentiale Cummeani (preface, excerpt); Capitula iudiciorum (previously known as the Poenitentiale XXXV capitulorum); Incipiunt capitula scarpsi de iudicio penitentiae beati Gregorii papae (= excerpts from the Libellus responsionum); Libellus responsionum; expositio consanguinitatis ("Auctore mei generis ..."); Fulgentius of Ruspe, Epistula VIII (De fide ad Donatum); Fulgentius of Ruspe, De fide ad Petrum (cc. 47–87); expositiones fidei; Paenitentiale Ecgberhti
Wz2 (H) Würzburg, Universitätsbibliothek, M.p.th.q.32, fols 1–24 (written first half of ninth century in either Würzburg or Fulda) Paenitentiale Umbrense (palimpsest;[27] fragmentary: capitulatio, abbreviated prologue, and cc. 1–12.3[28])[29]
Two-Book Version
Siglum Manuscript Contents
Cb4 (C) Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 320, fols 117–70 (written second half of tenth century in Canterbury)[30] Old English exhortations; Paenitentiale Umbrense in two-book form (fragmentary: begins partway through prologue; without capitulatio and epilogue); Libellus responsionum; poem by Archbishop Theodore; note on alms; Paenitentiale Cantabrigiense (a.k.a. Sangermanense); miscellaneous notes
M17 (Wi) Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 22288, fols 1–81 (written first half of twelfth century possibly in Bamberg) Excarpsus Cummeani; Paenitentiale Ecgberhti; unidentified penitential (including: [as Book 1] Paenitentiale Umbrense cc. 1–2.16 and excerpts on penance from [among other things] the Decretum Burchardi,[31] then Paenitentiale Umbrense cc. 10.1–15.2; [as Book 2] Paenitentiale Umbrense cc. 16–25, 27–29 and the Libellus responsionum; and [as Book 3] Paenitentiale Cummeani [preface, cc. (8)9 and (11)12, and epilogue only]); Liber proemium veteris ac novi testamenti; De ortu et obitu patrum; Micrologus de ecclesiasticis observationibus; Admonitio synodalis
V5 (Pal) Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Pal. lat. 485, fols 64–113 (written second half of ninth century in Lorsch) lections, prayers, a Gregorian sacramentary, canonical excerpts, a calendar, a necrology, and tracts on miscellaneous subjects, including weights and measures, confession, and astronomy; Paenitentiale Ecgberhti; Excarpsus Cummeani (excerpts); episcopal capitularies of Theodulf, Gerbald and Waltcaud; Sonderrezension der Vorstufe des Paenitentiale additivum Pseudo-Bedae–Ecgberhti; Paenitentiale Cummeani; Paenitentiale Umbrense in two-book form (fragmentary:[32] preface, prologue, and cc. 1–15)
Half Form
Siglum Manuscript Contents
B5 (Ha) Berlin, Staatsbibliothek Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Hamilton 132, fols 1–251 (written beginning of ninth century in Corbie) Collectio canonum Dionysio-Hadriana (with additions from the Collectio canonum Hispana Gallica Augustodunensis); Collectio canonum Sancti Amandi; Libellus responsionum; Pope Gregory II, Epistula ad Bonifatium (Desiderabilem mihi); Paenitentiale Umbrense cc. 16–29 (lacking 16.1–3 and 25.5–26.9) with c. 13 appended; canons of the council of Rome in 721; the canons of the council of Rome in 595 (Pope Gregory I's Libellus synodicus); Alcuin (?), Epistula contra hereticos (tractate against Adoptionism)
Br7 (Ga) Brussels, Bibliothèque royale Albert 1er, MS 10127–44 (363) (written end of eighth century, possibly in Belgium) Collectio canonum vetus Gallica; Pope Leo I, Epistula CLXVII (second part: cc. 7–19); Synodus II Patricii; Libellus responsionum; Pope Gregory I, Epistula 9.219 (excerpt); Pope Gregory I, Epistula 9.214 (excerpt); Quattuor synodus principales; Paenitentiale Umbrense cc. 16–29 (lacking 16.1–3 and 25.5) with c. 13 appended; Paenitentiale Remense (fragmentary);[33] Caesarius, Ecce manifestissime; Pope Gregory I, Epistula 9.219; Pope Gregory I, Epistula 9.214 (first part only); the canons of the council of Rome in 595 (Pope Gregory I's Libellus synodicus); the canons of the council of Rome in 721; Ordo librorum qui in ecclesia Romana ponuntur; Computus; De ratione Paschatis; De officiis in noctibus a cena Domini usque in Pascha; De servitio domni episcopi et archidiachoni; antiphonary; Ordo ad infirmum caticuminum faciendum; sacramentary
K1 (Col) Cologne, Erzbischöfliche Diözesan- und Dombibliothek, Cod. 91 (written around 800 in Burgundy) Collectio canonum vetus Gallica; Pope Leo I, Epistula CLXVII (second part: cc. 7–19); Synodus II Patricii; Libellus responsionum; Pope Gregory I, Epistula 9.219; Pope Gregory I, Epistula 9.214 (first part only); the canons of the council of Rome in 595 (Pope Gregory I's Libellus synodicus); Caesarius, Ecce manifestissime; the Isidorian Epistula ad Massonam; Pope Gregory I, Epistula 9.219 (excerpt); Pope Gregory I, Epistula 9.214 (excerpt); Quattuor synodus principales; Paenitentiale Umbrense cc. 16–29 (lacking 16.1–3 and 25.5), with c. 13 appended;[34] Excarpsus Cummeani
P5 (Maz) Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, Lat. 1454 (written 850×875 in or around Paris [Saint-Denis?]) De canonibus apostolorum seu de sex synodis principalibus ratio libelli primi breviter adnotata; Adnotatio libelli eiusdem synodis aliis XXIIII; Adnotatio eiusdem libelli de decretalibus apostolorum numero XXIIII; Isidore, Etymologiae (excerpt: on canon law); Scimus sciut quidam asserunt statutos esse canones ab apostolis L ... leguntur sub capitulis CCCXXVII; Nominatim scire cupio sex synodi principales ... Georgii Constantinopolitani condemnata heresi anathematizando scripserunt capitula VIIII (= Quattuor synodus principales?); list of Gallic councils; canons concerning Novatianists/Cathars; glossary of words from ancient canons; Osius of Cordova, De observatione disciplinae dominicae; Canones apostolorum; the canons of the council of Nicaea (versio Dionysiana II); the canons of the council of Laodicaea (versio Dionysiana II); the canons of the council of Antioch (versio Dionysiana II); Isidore, Etymologiae (excerpt: on canon law); Constitutum Sylvestri; Collectio canonum Quesnelliana; Differentia inter sacrificium et holocaustum; Pseudo-Silverius, Multis te transgressionibus; Pope Leo I, Epistula CXX; Paenitentiale Umbrense cc. 16–29 (lacking 16.1–3 and 25.5–26.9), with c. 13 appended; a text attributed to Gregorius (Sunt nonnulli qui cultum ... speluncam latronum. Gregorius); Troianus, Epistula ad Eumerium; Caesarius, Ecce manifestissime; Gennadius of Massilia, Liber ecclesiasticorum dogmatum; Scintilla de canonibus vel ordinationibus episcoporum; a collection of Merovingian conciliar canons similar to the Collectio canonum Bellovacensis;[35] Polemius Silvius, Laterculus preceded by Notitia Galliarum; the Isidorian Epistula ad Massonam
P6 (Par) Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, Lat. 1455 (written second half of ninth century in Francia [Reims?]) excerpts from the Collectio canonum Herovalliana, Cresconius's Concordia canonum and Benedictus Levita's Collectio capitularium;[36] Collectio canonum Colbertina; Decretum Gelasianum (cc. 3–5 only); Constitutum Constantini; Collectio canonum Sancti Amandi (expanded and corrected);[37] Libellus responsionum; Pope Gregory II, Epistula ad Bonifatium (Desiderabilem mihi); Paenitentiale Umbrense cc. 16–29 (lacking 16.1–3 and 25.5–26.9), with c. 13 appended; the canons of the council of Rome in 721; the canons of the council of Rome in 595 (Pope Gregory I's Libellus synodicus); Gelasian Sacramentary cc. 35–6; the canons from the councils of Toledo in 646, Braga in 675 and Seville in 590.
P7 (m) Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, Lat. 1458, fols 64–87 (written first half of ninth century in northern France)[38] Paenitentiale Umbrense cc. 16–29;[39] a collection of Merovingian conciliar canons similar to the Collectio canonum Bellovacensis;[40] † Collectio canonum Quesnelliana[41]
P10 (Germ) Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, Lat. 1603 (written about 800 in northeast Francia) portion of the St-Amand sacramentary; Admonitio generalis of 789 (c. 81 only); Collectio canonum vetus Gallica; Pope Leo I, Epistula CLXVII (second part: cc. 7–19); Synodus II Patricii; Libellus responsionum; Pope Gregory I, Epistula 9.219 (excerpt); Pope Gregory I, Epistula 9.214 (excerpt); Quattuor synodus principales; Paenitentiale Umbrense cc. 16–29 (lacking 16.1–3),[42] with c. 13 appended; Missa pro deuoto (added by another hand); Paenitentiale Remense; De modis peñ qualitate (Inquisitio seniorum. Sciendum uero est quantum quis ... et de suo labore uel pretio hoc redimat); Caesarius, Ecce manifestissime; Pope Gregory I, Epistula 9.219; Pope Gregory I, Epistula 9.214 (first part only); the Isidorian Epistula ad Massonam; Incipiunt sententias defloratibus diuersis (Homo pro quid dicitur? Resp. Homo dicitur ab humo ... nullatenus sunt recipienda); the canons of the council of Rome in 595 (Pope Gregory I's Libellus synodicus); the canons of the council of Rome in 721; Pirmin, Scarapsus; portion of the St-Amand sacramentary
P25 (l) Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, Lat. 3842A (written middle of ninth century in northern France [Paris?]) as Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, Lat. 1454 (i.e. including the Half Form of the Paenitentiale Umbrense),[43] but without the Epistula ad Massonam[44]
P26 (Reg) Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, Lat. 3846 (written beginning of ninth century in north Francia) Collectio canonum Dionysio-Hadriana; Collectio canonum Sancti Amandi; (*possibly a different section begins at this point*) Libellus responsionum; Pope Gregory II, Epistula ad Bonifatium (Desiderabilem mihi); Paenitentiale Umbrense cc. 16–29 (lacking 16.1–3 and 25.5–26.9), with c. 13 appended; the canons of the council of Rome in 721; the canons of the council of Rome in 595 (Pope Gregory I's Libellus synodicus)
P39 (366) Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, Lat. 12445 (Sangerm. 366) (written 868×871[45] in Reims) Notitia Galliarum; prefatory material from the Decretales pseudo-Isidorianae (A-Class: preface, Ordo de celebrando concilio, Pseudo-Damasus I's Epistula ad Aurelium [Scripta sanctitatis tuae], and Pseudo-Isidorian introduction to the council of Nicaea); series of excerpts on church organization; Pseudo-Isidorian introduction to a Sonderrezension ("special recension") of the Collectio canonum Dionysio-Hadriana; three canons and a glossary (contains several Old High German words); Collectio canonum Dionysio-Hadriana; (*possibly a second section begins at this point*)[46] Decretum Gelasianum; Paenitentiale Umbrense cc. 16–29 (lacking 16.1–3 and 25.5–26.9), with c. 13 appended; Martin of Braga, Capitula;[47] Capitula Angilramni; Collectio Danieliana cc. 131–33 (later additions);[48] (*possibly the third section begins at this point*)[49] excerpts from Pseudo-Isidore and the Collectio canonum Hispana Gallica Augustodunensis (Pope Symmachus's Epistula ad Caesarium [Hortatur nos] and Carthaginian councils [Carthage I to Carthage VI c. 9]); Hincmar of Reims's Ehetraktat (Tractate on Marriage);[50] Collectio Paris lat. 12445 and Berlin Phill. 1741 (including excerpts from Codex Theodosianus book XVI, the Constitutiones Sirmondianae, and the Lex Romana Visigothorum [or the Breviary of Alaric]); Leges novellae (excerpts: Valentinian cc. 27 and 35 = Breviarium cc. 8 and 12); Pope Gelasius I, Epistula ad episcopos Sicilienses (Quomodo praesulum); Augustine, Tractatus in evangelium Iohannis (excerpts: cc. 6.26 and 7.11); Collectio canonum Dacheriana (excerpts: cc. 2. 19–20, 22, 29); Augustine, De adulteriniis coniugiis (excerpts);Letter of Leo of Bourges, Victorius of Le Mans, and Esutachius of Tours (later addition);[51] Hincmar of Reims, Rotula; Pope Gregory I, Epistula 12.10; Pope Hilarus, Epistula ad Leontium, Veranum et Victurum (Movemur ratione); Pope Gregory I, Epistula 9.202 (short form); Pope Hilarus, Epistula ad episcopos quinque provinciarum (Quamquam notitiam); Pope Leo I, Epistula ad Theodorum (‘Sollicitudinis quidem tuae); Pope Gregory I, Epistula 5.8; Pope Gregory I, Epistula 8.14; Pope Gregory I, Epistula 6.11 (conclusion only); Leges novellae (excerpts: Valentinian cc. 8.1 and 8.2); Pope Gelasius I, Epistula ad episcopos Dardaniae (Valde mirati sumus; short form); Pope Felix III, Epistula ad episcopos orientales (Post quingentos annos); the canons of the council of Rome in 595 (Pope Gregory I's Libellus synodicus); Collectio canonum Sancti Amandi (excerpts);[52] Hincmar of Reims's Ehetraktat (Tractate on Marriage; third part only); canons from the council of Rome in 826 (cc. 13–15, 19–20 and 29); Leges novellae (excerpt: Valentinian c. 35 = Breviarium c. 12); Pope Gelasius I, Epistula ad Anastasium augustum (Famuli vestrae pietatis); Ambrose, Expositio de psalmo 118 (excerpts: cc. 8.25–30); Pope Celestine I, Epistula ad Nestorium (Aliquantis diebus); canons from the council of Rome in 853 (cc. 13–15, 18–23); Epitome Iuliani cc. 104 (366) and 119.6 (511); Pope Gregory I, Epistula 7.36
St2 (Stu) Stuttgart, Württembergische Landesbibliothek, HB. VI. 109 (written first quarter of ninth century in southwest Germany) Collectio canonum vetus Gallica; Pope Leo I, Epistula CLXVII (second part: cc. 7–19); Synodus II Patricii; Libellus responsionum; Pope Gregory I, Epistula 9.219 (excerpt); Pope Gregory I, Epistula 9.214 (excerpt); Quattuor synodus principales; Paenitentiale Umbrense cc. 16–29 (fragmentary: lacking 16.1–3 [? and 25.5]) with c. 13 appended;[53] Fructuosus, Regula c. 16 (second part only) (later addition); Latin and Old High German glosses on words from conciliar canons (later addition)
St3 (Stutt) Stuttgart, Württembergische Landesbibliothek, HB. VI. 112, fols 1–124 (written in second half of tenth century in Lake Constance region) canons from the Capitulare Wormatiense of 829 cc. 1–4 (later addition); Apostles’ creed; Collectio canonum vetus Gallica (up to c. 64.23, and including as part of the text: Caesarius's Ecce manifestissime, Pope Gregory I's Epistula 9.219 and first part of Epistula 9.214, along with 78 additional canons);[54] the canons of the council of Nicaea (versio Attici); Hrabanus Maurus, Poenitentiale ad Heribaldum c. 10 (later addition); a small selection of canons possibly deriving from Regino of Prüm's Libri duo de synodalibus causis;[55] mixed form of the Paenitentiale Remense and the Excarpsus Cummeani;[56] the Isidorian Epistula ad Massonam; the canons of the council of Rome in 595 (Pope Gregory I's Libellus synodicus); Synodus II Patricii; Libellus responsionum; the canons of the council of Rome in 721; Collectio canonum vetus Gallica cc. 64.24–30;[57] Poenitentiale ad Heribaldum c. 20 (excerpt); Pope Leo I, Epistula CLXVII (second part: cc. 7–19); Paenitentiale Umbrense cc. 16–29 (fragmentary: beginning partway through 16.10)[58] with c. 13 appended; a small selection of canons;[59] Ansegis, Collectio capitularium; Lex Alamannorum (B) cc. 6.1 -4 and 8.1–2; canons from the Capitulare Wormatiense of 829 cc. 1–4 and 6 (later addition)
Sg1 (S) St Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. 150, pp. 323–84 (written between 820 and 840 in St. Gallen) Paenitentiale Sangallense tripartitum (including excerpts from first half of Paenitentiale Umbrense);[60] Ordo Romanus VII (incomplete); Paenitentiale Umbrense cc. 16–29 (incomplete: begins partway through 27.11, and continues to end [29.14]), with c. 13 appended;[61] Paenitentiale Sangallense simplex; Paenitentiale Vinniani; Pseudo-Augustine, Sermo ad fratres in eremo
Vs1 Vesoul, Bibliothèque municipale, MS 79 (73) (written around 1000 in France) a penitential combining the Half Form of the Paenitentiale Umbrense and Excarpsus Cummeani;[62] Paenitentiale additivum Pseudo-Bedae–Ecgberhti;[63]Libellus responsionum c. 9;[64] Institutio canonum (in 91 chapters); Decretum Compendiense from 757 (cc. 1–4); Decretum Vermeriense from 756 (cc. 1–2); tractate on baptism; commentary by Fortunatus on the creed; commentaries on the mass and the Pater noster; commentary on the creed; Theodulf, Capitulare I; canonical and patristic excerpts

Non-Umbrense versions

Siglum Manuscript Contents
Ba2 Basel, Universitätsbibliothek, N. I 1 no. 3c (written around 800 in Fulda)[65] Canones Basilienses
Le1 Leiden, Bibliotheek der Rijksuniversiteit, Vulc. 108/12 [66] (written ninth or tenth century in northeastern Francia)[67] Paenitentiale Ecgberhti (fragmentary: prologue + cc. 4.8–5.1);[68] fragments of an unidentified penitential (including the Edictio Bonifatii);[69] Canones Basilienses (fragmentary: cc. 1–4a)[70]
L11 (Co) London, British Library, Cotton Vespasian D. XV, fols 68–101 (written middle of tenth century in England) among other things the Canones Cottoniani
Mc1 Monte Cassino, Archivio e Biblioteca dell’Abbazia, Cod. 372 (ext. 372 et 340; int. 553) (written beginning of eleventh century at St Nicola della Cicogna) Canones Gregorii; xxxxxxxxxxxxx
M14 (E) Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 14780, fols 1–53 (written end of eighth century in France) Canones Gregorii; Libellus responsionum; canons of the council of Rome in 743; ordo librorum veteris et novi testamenti; commutations
O2 Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 311 (2122), (written second half of tenth century in north or northeastern Francia)[71] capitulationes for the Canones Gregorii (213 titles) and the Libellus responsionum (18 titles); Canones Gregorii; Libellus responsionum; Poenitentiale 223 capitulorum (including: Paenitentiale Cummeani; Paenitentiale Remense [excerpts]; Paenitentiale Umbrense [excerpt: 20.1–4 and 20.6–10 only]; Paenitentiale Oxoniense I); Pseudo-Jerome, Epistula 12 c. 6 (ad Damasum papam; ‘'De septem ordinibus ecclesiae’'); Paenitentiale Oxoniense II
P12 (Par) Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, Lat. 2123 (written around 815 in Flavigny) canons from the council of Ephesus (cc. 1–4 only; versio Isidoriana); canons of the Lateran council of 649 (incomplete); Gennadius of Massilia, Liber ecclesiasticorum dogmatum; Pseudo-Augustine, Sermones de Symbolo; Pope Leo I, Epistula CLXV (testimonia only); Liber pontificalis (abridged); Polemius Silvius, Laterculus followed by Notitia Galliarum; Canones Gregorii; Collectio canonum Herovalliana (large excerpt); a canon from the council of Carthage in 418 (c. 1 only); chronology of the ages of the world, up to Charlemagne; Marculfus, Formulae; Isidore, Etymologiae (excerpts)
P22 (B) Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, Lat. 3182 (written second half of tenth century, probably in Brittany) A collection of chapters (mostly canonical and penitential) entitled "Incipiunt uerba pauca tam de episcopo quam de presbitero aut de omnibus ecclesię gradibus et de regibus et de mundo et terra", more commonly known as the Collectio canonum Fiscani or the Fécamp collection. The contents are as follows: Liber ex lege Moysi;[72] notes on chronology;[73] a brief note on Bishop Narcissus of Jerusalem (Narcisus Hierosolimorum episcopus qui fecit oleum de aqua ... orbaretur et euenit illis ut iurauerunt); Incipiunt remissiones peccatorum quas sanctus in collatione sua Penuffius per sanctas construxit scripturas (= large excerpt from Cassian’s Collationes c. 20.8); more notes on chronology;[74] Pastor Hermae cc. 4.1.4–4.4.2 (versio Palatina); scriptural excerpts on chastity, marriage and the oaths of one's wife; Incipiunt uirtutes quas Dominus omni die fecit (chapters on Sunday, the days of Creation, and the Last Judgment); Collectio canonum Hibernensis cc 1.22.b–c (on the murder of priests, and bishops' duty to persist in their own dioceses); Collectio canonum Hibernensis (A version, complete copy); Excerpta de libris Romanorum et Francorum (a.k.a. Canones Wallici); Canones Adomnani (cc. 1–7 only), with an extra chapter appended (Equus aut pecus si percusserit ... in agro suo non reditur pro eo);

(*Bieler's section II begins*)[75] Capitula Dacheriana; Canones Adomnani (complete copy); Incipiunt canones Anircani concilii episcoporum XXIIII de libro III (a small collection of canones from the council of Ancyra in modified versio Dionysiana II form);[76] Incipiunt iudicia conpendia de libro III (a small collection of canons including a canon from the council of Neocaesarea [in modified versio Dionysiana II form] and excerpts from the Paenitentiale Vinniani);[77] Canones Hibernenses II (on commutations), with Synodus Luci Victorie cc. 7–9 appended (*Bieler's section II ends*);

Isidore, Etymologiae (excerpts on consanguinity); commentary on the Book of Numbers (on oaths); Isidore, Etymologiae (excerpts on consanguinity and heirs); Institutio ęclesiasticae auctoritatis, qua hi qui proueniendi sunt ad sacerdotium, profiteri debent se obseruaturos, et si ab his postea deuiauerint canonica auctoritate plectentur (excerpts on ordination);[78] Collectio canonum Dionysio-Hadriana (ending with canons of the council of Rome in 721); Quattuor synodus principales; Isidore, Etymologiae (excerpts on the ancient councils); Hii sunt subterscripti heretici contra quos factae sunt istę synodi: Arrius ... Purus, Stephanus; De ieiunio IIII temporum anni (In mense Martio ... nulli presbiterorum liceat uirginem consecrare); Libellus responsionum; Pope Gregory I, Epistula 9.219 (excerpt); Pope Gregory I, Epistula 9.214 (excerpt);[79] De decimis et primogenitis et primitiuis in lege (excerpts on tithes);[80] Canones Hibernenses III (on tithes); Paenitentiale Gildae; Synodus Aquilonis Britanniae; Synodus Luci Victoriae; Ex libro Davidis; Capitula Dacheriana (c. 21 [first part] only); Canones Adomnani (cc. 19–20 only); Capitula Dacheriana (cc. 21 [second part, with si mortui inueniantur uel in rebus strangulati appended] and 168 only); excerpts from St Paul (on food); excerpts on hours and the order of prayer;[81] De pęnitentia infirmorum (Paenitentiale Cummeani c. [8]9.28 + Paenitentiale Columbani A c. 1 [first part]); De recitentibus aliorum peccata (Paenitentiale Cummeani c. [8]9.19); De oratione facienda etiam pro peccatoribus (Scriptura dicit in commoratione mortuorum: etiam si peccavit, tamen patrem ... dum angeli Dei faciunt); Paenitentiale Bigotianum; Theodulf, Capitulare I ("Kurzfassung");[82] Isidore, De ecclesiasticis officiis (excerpt: De officiis ad fidem venientium primo de symbolo apostolico quo inbuuntur competentes, with commentary on Deuteronomy 22–3 appended); Canones Hibernenses IV; excerpts on marriage (mainly from Augustine and Jerome, but also including Synodus II Patricii c. 28); excerpts on kings;[83] excerpts on sons and their debts;[84] Collectio canonum Hibernensis c. 38.17; Patricius dicit (= Canones Hibernenses IV c. 9), Item synodus Hibernensis (= Canones Hibernenses IV c. 1–8);[85] De iectione ęclesie graduum ab ospicio (= Canones Hibernenses V); chapters from Exodus and Deuteronomy (excerpts on virgins and adulterers); on the ordo missae (excerpt from Isidore's De ecclesiasticis officiis); Liber pontificalis (Linus natione italus ... Bonifacius LXVIII natione romanus hic qui obtinuit ... se omnium eclesiarum scribebat); De duodecim sacrificiis (excerpt from Pseudo-Jerome's Disputatio de sollempnitatibus paschae);[86] the ten commandments (Decim precepta legis in prima tabula ... rem proximi tui mundi cupiditatem); excerpts on hours and song (including Pro quibus uirtutibus cantatur omnis cursus, De pullorum cantu, De matudinis, etc.); a brief tract explaining the reason for the flood;[87] De eo quod non nocet ministerium ministrantis sacerdotis contagium uitę (= Collectio canonum Hibernensis [B version] c. 2.12);[88] Canones Hibernenses VI; Capitulare legibus addenda a. 803; Lex Salica emendata; two forged letters purporting to represent a discussion between Pope Gregory I and Bishop Felix of Messina (on consanguinity, the Anglo-Saxons, and the nature of the Pope's Libellus responsionum);[89] Theodulf, Capitulare I (fragmentary);[90] Paenitentiale Ecgberhti (fragmentary: beginning partway through c. 2); Pseudo-Jerome, De duodecim triduanis

P27 (A) Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, Lat. 3848B (written end of eighth or beginning of ninth century in Flavigny) Canones Gregorii; Ex opusculis sancti Augustini et sancti Ysidoru de diuersis heresibus (Quidam heredici ex nominibus suorum auctorum ... tamen heredicus appellari potest); Gennadius of Massilia, Liber ecclesiasticorum dogmatum; Pseudo-Augustine, Sermo 242 (de symbolo); Pseudo-Augustine, Sermo 244 (expositio fidei); Pope Leo I, Epistula CLXV (testimonia only);[91] Pope Leo I, Epistula XXVIII (= Tomus Leonis); Cyril, Epistula ad Nestorium ;[92] Cyril, Epistula ad Iohannem episcopum Antiochiae;[93] excerpts from the acta of the council of Chalcedon;[94] De fide trinitatis (excerpts from the Insular Liber de ordine creaturarum and Isidorian's De differentiis rerum); Collectio canonum Herovalliana; chapters on heretics ascribed to Augustine and Isidore; an excerpt from Rufinus's translation of Eusebius's Historia ecclesiastica (on the council of Nicaea); Gennadius of Massilia, Liber ecclesiasticorum dogmatum
P36 (Sg) Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, Lat. 12021 (Sangerm. 121), fols 33r–356 (written third quarter of the ninth century in Brittany) Collectio canonum Hibernensis; Capitula Dacheriana; Canones Adomnani (complete copy); excerpts from the councils of Ancyra and Neocaesarea and also from the Paenitentiale Vinniani (as in P22); Canones Hibernenses II (on commutations), with Synodus Luci Victorie cc. 7–9 appended; excerpts from Isidore's Etymologiae on consanguinity and relatives; excerpts from Cresconius's Concordia canonum; Collectio canonum Dionysio-Hadriana; *****
Pr1 Prague, Knihovna metropolitní kapituly, O. 83 (1668), fols 131–45 (written second half of eighth century[95] in either Bavaria or northern Italy) Canones Gregorii (fragmentary: cc. 174–end);[96] Libellus responsionum (fragmentary)[97]

Excerpts

Note that reports of the presence of Paenitentiale Umbrense and/or Canones Gregorii excerpts in the tenth-century Collectio 77 capitulorum as found in Heiligenkreuz, Stiftsbibliothek, MS 217 and Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 3853 are in error.[98] What such reports are actually referring to is the penitential known as the Capitula iudiciorum (previously known as the Poenitentiale XXXV capitulorum).[99]

Siglum Manuscript Contents
K5 (Kol) Cologne, Erzbischöfliche Diözesan- und Dombibliothek, Cod. 210[100] (written second half of eighth century in northeast Francia, possible the region around Cambrai[101]) a "truncated" and interpolated A version of the Collectio canonum Hibernensis;[102] a systematically arranged penitential known as the Collectio 2 librorum (including [in the second book only] extensive excerpts from the Full Form of the Paenitentiale Umbrense[103])
Kw1 Kynžvart, Zámecká Knihovna, 75 (20 K 20), fols 1–78 (written first half of twelfth century in [Saint Blaise Abbey]) Quotienscumque instruction;[104] Decretum Burchardi (excerpts on commutations); Paenitentiale Pseudo-Romanum (= Book VI of Halitgar's Paenitentiale); Hrabanus Maurus, Poenitentiale ad Heribaldum (Sonderrezension); Canones Gregorii though here ascribed to Theodore (cc. 1–8, 12–16, 21–5, and 29–31); Capitula iudiciorum (previously known as the Poenitentiale XXXV capitulorum); an unidentified penitential canon law collection (in 58 chapters);[105] Regino of Prüm, Libri duo de synodalibus causis (excerpts)
L1 (L) London, British Library, Add. 8873 (written first half of twelfth century in Italy) Collectio canonum Britannica xxxxxxxxxxxxx
L2 London, British Library, Add. 16413 (written beginning of eleventh century in southern Italy) two unique fragments of the council of Rome in 769;[106] Pseudo-Damasus, Epistula ad Hieronymum de hora sacrificii (JK †246) (excerpt); Admonitio generalis of 789 (cc. 81 and 78 only); Pseudo-Clement I, Epistula ad Iacobum (JK †11) (with some possibly unique additions); canons of the council of Rome in 721 (cc. 1–12 only); several conciliar canons and excerpts from decretals and patristic texts concerning clerical offices; ordo missae; prologue to a sacramentary; chapters from Augustine; Edictio Bonifatii (from the Paenitentiale mixtum Pseudo-Bedae–Ecgberhti ?); De consolatione Origenis defunctorum;[107] De his qui vexantur et seipso interficitunt (= Paenitentiale Umbrense cc. 25.1–2); expositiones fidei; expositio symboli; commentary on clerical grades; expositio baptismatis; liturgica; Sermo de paenitentia;[108] Quotienscumque instruction; Paenitentiale Remenese (? Redemptionstexte);[109] Paenitentiale Cummeani (prologue only); a penitential in 38 chapters (including: [as cc. 1–35] the Capitula iudiciorum [previously known as the Poenitentiale XXXV capitulorum]; and [as cc. 36–8] Iudicium Gregorii de penitentia ad Augustinum [= excerpts from the Libellus responsionum]); Libellus responsionum (incorporating as its third question c. I.20 of Julianus Pomerius’s De vita contemplativa; Julianus Pomerius, De vita contemplativa (c. I.21); Pope Celestine I, Epistula ad universos episcopos per Apuliam et Calabriam constitutos (JK 371) (c. 1 only); Epitome Hispana (excerpts); Canones Gregorii though here ascribed to Theodore (cc. 30, 41–2, 61, 70–1, 72 [first part], 75–6, 77 [partial], 130 [partial] 134, and 159);[110] Collectio canonum vetus Gallica (excerpts);[111] sermons; Pope Gregory I, Epistula ad Secundinum (beginning only, with interpolation De reparatione lapsi);[112] statutes from a south Italian council[113]
Me1 (M) Merseburg, Dombibliothek, MS 103 (written first half of ninth century in northern Italy) xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Mc3 Monte Cassino, Archivio e Biblioteca dell’Abbazia, Cod. 554 (ext. 554, 508) (written second half of tenth century in Italy) xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Canones Gregorii (excerpts);[114] xxxxxxxx
M2 (Aug) Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 3852, fols 54–end (written eleventh century in southern Germany) xxxxxxxxxxxxx
M6 (Fris) Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 6241 (written end of tenth century in Freising) fols 33v–35r contain a series of canons ascribed to Theodore and based on the Canones Gregorii[115]
–[116] Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 6245 (written second half of the tenth century in Freising) Canones Gregorii cc. 1–4 (here ascribed to sancti Gregorii, though this ascription later corrected to sancti Theodori), as the last in a short series of canons added to fols 1r–2v by an early eleventh-century hand[117]
– Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 14468 (written 821 in Regensburg) xxxxxx; Paenitential Umbrense cc. 5.3 and 14.4 (though possibly instead Canones Gregorii cc. 48a and 68); xxxxxxxxxxxxx
– Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 21587 (written between about 1025–1035 in Freising) the second volume of the pontifical of Bishop Egilbert of Freising[118] (contains on fol. 20r–v Canones Gregorii cc. 1–4, here ascribed to Theodore)[119]
O2* Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 311 (2122), (written tenth century in north or northeastern Francia) as in the table above (i.e. including excerpts from the Paenitentiale Umbrense (either Full or Half Form)
– Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, Lat. 13658 (written twelfth century in Saint-Germain-des-Près) Collectio of Paris lat. 13658 (including "capitulum XXVII" of the Paenitentiale Umbrense, which is introduced by a rubric borrowed from the Umbrense preface)
P46 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, nouv. acq. lat. 281, fols 92–4, 99–101, 110, 119 (written ca. 1000 in either northern Italy or southern Francia) John Cassian, Collationes 5.2 and 5.16;[120] Paenitentiale Columbani B (prologue only); Quotienscumque instruction;[121] Paenitentiale Oxoniense II (first part of prologue only);[122] Capitula iudiciorum (fragmentary); Canones Gregorii (cc. 4–12, 14–21, 23–28); tractate on penance (beginning: "Penitentiae modus non unus esse debet")
P22* Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, Lat. 3182 (written second half of tenth century, probably in Brittany) as in the table above (i.e. including excerpts from the Capitula Dacheriana)
P38[123] Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, Lat. 12444 (Sangerm. 938) (written end of eighth or beginning of ninth century probably in Fleury)[124] Collectio Sangermanensis XXI titulorum (including excerpts from among others the Collectio canonum Hibernensis, Isidore's Etymologiae, ancient Eastern, African and Gallic conciliar canons [in various versions, some of which are otherwise unknown],[125] Collectio canonum Pithouensis, the Statuta ecclesiae antiqua, decretals from Siricius to Gregory I, the Libellus responsionum, the Half Form of the Paenitentiale Umbrense, Basil's Regula, Gennadius of Massilia’s Liber ecclesiasticorum dogmatum, Caesarius's letter Ecce manifestissime, and the writings of Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Cassian, and Cyril); a long and (as it currently stands) incomplete[126] series of excerpts from the Collectio canonum Hibernensis, possibly meant as a continuation of the Collectio Sangermanensis[127]
Sg1* St Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. 150, pp. 323–84 (written between 820 and 840 in St. Gallen) as in the table above (i.e. including excerpts from the first half of Paenitentiale Umbrense)
St6+Da1+Do1 Stuttgart, Württembergische Landesbibliothek, Cod. Fragm. 100 A, w, x, y and z + Darmstadt, Hessische Landes- und Hochschulbibliothek, MS 895 fragm. + Donaueschingen, Hofbibliothek, MS 925 Fragm.[128] (written about 800 probably in northern Italy) Epitome Hispana (fragmentary; excerpts);[129] Paenitentiale Oxoniense II (fragmentary); Paenitentiale Ecgberhti (prologue and c. 4.15 only, possibly once followed by further Paenitentiale Ecgberhti material); a series of penitential excerpts[130] (fragmentary; including excerpts from the earlier chapters of Paenitentiale Umbrense, Paenitentiale Cummeani, and Paenitentiale Burgundense);[131] Paenitentiale Bedae[132] (first preface and first sentence of second preface[133] only, possibly once followed by further Paenitentiale Bedae material)
St1 Stuttgart, Württembergische Landesbibliothek, HB. VI. 107[134] (written end of the eleventh century in southwest Germany) Collectio 74 titulorum (Swabian recension); Decretum Gelasianum; De ecclesiis (a collection of canons in 47 chapters);[135] Bernold of Constance, Collectio de excommunicatione (incomplete); De illicitis coniunctionibus (a collection of canons in 24chapters);[136] Brevis denotatio VI principalium sinodorum (a.k.k. Adnotatio I);[137] De auctoritate IIIIor principalium conciliorum (excerpt Pope Gregory I, Epistula ad Iohannem Constantinopolitanum); canons from the councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon; Sciendum quod plures orientalium conciliorum ediciones ... per beatum Adrianum papam occidentalibus ęcclesiis directa probatur; Brevis denotatio canonum subter annexorum ... (a.k.a. Adnotatio II);[138] Collectio 98 capitulorum (cc. 8 and 24 only); canon 27 of the council of Mainz in 847; excerpts from the Collectio 98 capitulorum; Augustinus contra Novatum; Paenitentiale Umbrense cc. 14.20, 2.16 (first part), 2.17 (first part), 2.3 (second part), 2.1 (first part), 8.1, xxxxx
V23+Mb2 Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. lat. 5751, fols 1–54 + Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, G. 58 sup., fols 41–64[139] (written end of ninth century in Bobbio) Collectio canonum Dacheriana (preface only, without the final paragraph describing the structure of the collection proper);[140] Pseudo-Chrysostom, Sermo de penitentia (Provida mente, short form);[141] Octo sunt vitia principalia (= Cassian's Collationes cc. 5.2 and 5.16, and the prologue of the Paenitentiale Columbani B ); Paenitentiale Oxoniense (prologue only, and in shortened form);[142] an unidentified penitential text (Incipit de sacrificiis et remissione fratrum. Sed fortasse dicant ... per Iesum Christum dominum nostrum); Paenitentiale Cummeani (prologue only); Halitgar's Paenitentiale (preface and books I–II only); Pope Gregory I, Epistula ad Secundinum (beginning only, with interpolation De reparatione lapsi);[143] the Isidorian Epistula ad Massonam; canons of the council of Agde (506); Paenitentiale Pseudo-Romanum (= Book VI of Halitgar's Paenitentiale); a short collection of Gallic canons;[144] Epitome Hispana (excerpts); Canones Gregorii though here ascribed to Theodore (excerpts: cc. 1–8, 12–16, 21–5, 29–31);[145] Capitula iudiciorum (variant version, with Excarpsus Cummeani cc. 7-15 and 20); Pseudo-Clemens I, Epistula ad Iacobum; a penitential ordo with two prayers; Paenitentiale Merseburgense a (with a Columbanian prologue);[146] the canons of the Admonitio generalis of 789 (incomplete);[147] Isidore, De ecclesiasticis officiis, cc. 42–3; Paenitentiale Cummeani (without prologue); ‘Inquisitio sancti Hieronomi’ (commutations); Paenitentiale Ambrosianum; Vorstufe des Paenitentiale additivum Pseudo-Bedae–Ecgberhti; Excarpsus Cummeani (excerpts: cc. 3.21, 3.23-24, 3.42, 3.36, 3.38); Gennadius of Massilia, Liber ecclesiasticorum dogmatum; Tertullian, De oratione cc. 9–end; the canons from the council of Ephesus (versio Isidori); the canons from the council of Gangra (fragmentary: title only)
W11 Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Cod. Lat. 2231 (s. ix/x, Italy or south Francia) xxxxxxxxxxxxx

The following table summarizes the manuscript distribution of the several versions of the Paenitentiale Theodori (not including small excerpts):

Summary of Manuscript Distribution

Version No. of Witnesses Sigla of Witnesses
Canones Basilienses 2 Ba2, Le1
Canones Cottoniani 1 L11
Capitula Dacheriana 2 P22, P36
Canones Gregorii 5 M14, O2, P12, P27, Pr1
Paenitentiale Umbrense Full Form 7 Cb4, M17, V5, V6, W7, W9, Wz2 (+ the extensive excerpts in K5)
Paenitentiale Umbrense Half Form numerous Sg1, Collectio canonum Quesnelliana witnesses (P5, P7, P25), Collectio canonum vetus Gallica witnesses (Br7, K1, P10, St2 [= 'North French' class]; St3 [= 'South German' class]), Collectio canonum Sancti Amandi witnesses (B5, P6/P26,[148] P39[149]) (+ the extensive excerpts in P38)

Finsterwalder further divided the witnesses of the Paenitentiale Umbrense into two classes ...[150]

Of the earliest manuscript witnesses, namely those dating to the end of the eighth or beginning of the ninth centuries, none originate in England, the supposed place of origin of the Paenitentiale Theodori; this is not unusual, however, since many early Insular texts survive today exclusively in Continental witnesses. The majority of extant manuscripts of the Paenitentiale Theodori originate in either Burgundy, northeastern France, and the region of the Rhine and Main rivers. This is significant, as it is these areas in which the Anglo-Saxon mission, specifically that part directed by Boniface, operated in during the first half of the eighth century. The manuscript evidence may thus reflect an early transmission within the scribal centres in the area of this mission, and so may indicate Anglo-Saxon involvement in the Paententiale Theodori's early dissemination throughout and/or its introduction to the Continent.

Reception

As discussed above (Authorship), the Capitula Dacheriana was perhaps the earliest of the several versions. Based on the close connection between the Capitula Dacheriana and the Collectio Hibernensis, Charles-Edwards has argued that the Capitula Dacheriana were produced, perhaps in conjunction with the Hibernensis, in Ireland, whence the text was imported along with the Hibernensis to Brittany and subsequently Francia.[151] Charles-Edwards's narrative is both plausible and persuasive, and should probably be accepted as a broad outline, even if some of its details are based more speculative.[152]

The most likely candidate for the introduction of the Paenitentiale Umbrense to the Continent is Boniface, an Anglo-Saxon missionary and a competent canonist who work tirelessly to reform the Frankish, German and Bavarian churches in the first half of the eighth century. Boniface knew the Paenitentiale Umbrense, for quotations of it pepper several canonical works that are attributed to him. Boniface also knew, and worked closely with, the papal document known as the Libellus responsionum. It is no surprise, then, that the earliest manuscript witnesses of the Paenitentiale Umbrense transmit this text in close proximity with the Libellus responsionum. It was also probably Boniface who was responsible for introducing the Paenitentiale Umbrense to the Corbie redaction of the Collectio canonum vetus Gallica, in whose creation he seems to have played some part.

The Canones Gregorii is quoted twice in c. 19 of Pirmin's Scarapsus,[153] and on this basis Eckhard Hauswald, the most recent editor of the Scarapsus, was able to date this text to between 725 and 750 [154] The Paenitentiale Umbrense was also used as a source for two early eighth-century Continental penitentials, namely the Excarpsus Cummeani and the Capitula iudiciorum.[155] And several chapters from the Half Form were added to the text of the Corbie redaction of the Collectio canonum vetus Gallica, produced in the second quarter of the eighth century — this in addition to the inclusion of nearly the entire latter half (= Book II or Half Form) of the Paenitentiale Umbrense in the Vetus Gallica appendix.[156] Altogether, these four works demonstrate that the Paenitentiale Umbrense was available for use on the Continent well before the year 750. The Collectio Sangermanensis, dating to the second half of the eighth century and probably also produced at Corbie, also draws on the Paenitentiale Umbrense ...

Towards the end of the eighth century, Paul the deacon, in his Historia Langobardorum c. 5.30, testified to Theodore's reputation as a promulgator of penitential canons.[157]

It is perhaps significant that four of the five Collectio canonum vetus Gallica witnesses that contain an appended copy of the Half Form of the Paenitentiale Umbrense — Br7, K1, P10, St2 — are those from Mordek's 'North French' class. Moreover, Br7, K1, P10, St2 are the only copies of the Collectio canonum vetus Gallica to contain a series of chapters drawn from the monastic rules of Columban, Macarius, Basil and Benedict (Collectio canonum vetus Gallica cc. 46.26–37).[158] These are the only chapters in the entire Collectio canonum vetus Gallica tradition to draw on monastic sources. The fifth Collectio canonum vetus Gallica witness that contains a copy of the Half Form of the Paenitentiale Umbrense — St3 — is from Mordek's 'South German' class, a class that represents a tradition about as old as the 'North French' one (i.e. the 740's; both traditions stem ultimately from a mid-eighth-century Corbie redaction).[159] However, whereas the manuscripts of the 'North French' tradition preserve more or less in tact the series of mainly penitential texts appended to the Collectio canonum vetus Gallica (Synodus II Patricii, Paenitentiale Umbrense, etc.), most of the manuscripts of the 'South German' class have modified greatly the arrangement and constituent texts of this appended series. The 'South German' manuscript St3 is exceptional, however. As Mordek has shown, it is not only the most faithful witness to the 'South German' Vetus Gallica tradition, it is also the witness with an appendix most resembling that of the 'North French' tradition.[160] It is, for example, the only manuscript from outside the 'North French' group to contain in its appendix the Synodus II Patricii, the Isidorian Epistula ad Massonam, the canons of the council of Rome in 595 (Pope Gregory I's Libellus synodicus), and the Paenitentiale Umbrense. What might therefore have seemed like an anomaly in the tradition of the Paenitentiale Umbrense + Collectio canonum vetus Gallica combination — namely that an apparently distinctive feature of the 'North French' tradition (the presence of the Paenitentiale Umbrense in the appendix) is also shared by a single 'South German' manuscript — in fact is only evidence that the Paenitentiale Umbrense was part of the original series of texts appended to the Corbie redaction of the Collectio canonum vetus Gallica in the mid-eighth century.

According to Mordek,[161] fols 80–195 of P6 (which contain the Collectio canonum Sancti Amandi, the Libellus responsionum, Pope Gregory II's letter for Boniface beginning Desiderabilem mihi, the Half Form of the Paenitentiale Umbrense, the canons of the council of Rome in 721, and the canons of the council of Rome in 595) are likely a copy — modified with the help of a Collectio Hispana of either the Gallican or Pseudo-Isidorian form — of fols 128–266 of P26.

Although P39 is above classified as a Collectio canonum Sancti Amandi witness, and although it exhibits the same Paenitentiale Umbrense omissions that are characteristic of all Sancti Amandi witnesses (namely omission of 16.1–3 and 25.5–26.9), there are nevertheless reasons not to associate the P39 copy of the Paenitentiale Umbrense with the Sancti Amandi tradition. First, it has long been recognized that the contents of P39 are very similar to those of Berlin, Staatsbibliothek Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Phill. 1741, copied in the same place and time as P39 (ca 850×875 in Reims).[162] However, the section of P39 that contains the Paenitentiale Umbrense (fols 151–166 = Böhringer's "Teil II") is not duplicated in Phill. 1741. What is more, this section of P39, which is self-contained on two gatherings (gatherings 21–22), may very well have once been separate from the rest of the manuscript, for it begins with a change of scribal hand, and the text on the last page ends imperfectly (fol 166v: Si quis metropolitanus episcopus nisi quod ad suam solummodo propriam pertinet parrochiam sine concilio). Fols 151–166 of P39 may therefore have originated as a stand-alone dossier of materials, and only been joined with the rest of the codex (i.e. the part of the codex with the Sancti Amandi excerpts) at a later time.[163]

Editions

The Canones Basilienses has been edited once:

This article is part of the series:
Jurisprudence of Canon Law
Canon Law Task Force

The Canones Cottoniani has been edited once:

The Capitula Dacheriana has been edited three times and reprinted three times:

The Canones Gregorii has been edited five times and reprinted once:

The Full Form of the Paenitentiale Umbrense has been edited eight times and reprinted once:

The Half Form of the Paenitentiale Umbrense (= cc. 16.4–25.4 + cc. 26(27)–29 + c. 13) has been edited twice and reprinted twice:

Notes

  1. ↑ See Charles-Edwards, "Penitential", p. 142.
  2. ↑ Charles-Edwards, "Penitential", p. 144: "Whereas the Disciple's work is organized in Roman fashion, by books and titles, the [Capitula Dacheriana] are simply a series of sentences with no overt structural framework."
  3. ↑ L. Bieler, ed. and trans., The Irish penitentials, with an appendix by D.A. Binchy, Scriptores Latini Hiberniae 5 (Dublin, 1963), pp. 20–4.
  4. ↑ This terminus ante quem is not as certain as it is often claimed to be. It is based on the evidence of a colophon found in the Paris 12021, which ascribes its copy of the Hibernensis to Ruben of Dairinis (died 725) and Cú Chuimne of Iona (died 747). Since the pioneering article of R. Thurneysen, "Zur irischen Kanonensammlung", in Zeitschrift für Celtische Philologie 6 (1907–1908), pp. 1–5, it has been assumed by many scholars that this colophon provides the names of the compilers of the Hibernensis; and, based on Ruben's known obit, it has been deduced that the Hibernensis cannot date to later than 725. However, as Sven Meeder notes, the colophon merely mentions the names of two men, and leaves "many uncertainties regarding the details of their involvement" in the production of the work itself; S. Meeder, "The spread and reception of Hiberno-Latin scholarship on the Continent in the eighth and ninth centuries" (unpubl. PhD diss., University of Cambridge, 2010), p. 71, and see also D.N. Dumville, "Ireland, Brittany, and England: transmission and use of Collectio canonum Hibernensis", in Irlande et Bretagne: vingt siècles d’histoire. Actes du Colloque de Rennes (29–31 Mars 1993), eds C. Laurent and H. Davis, Essais 7 (Rennes, 1994), pp. 84–95, at p. 86. For a thorough consideration of the identities of Ruben and Cú Chuimne, including their possible political and ideological affiliations, see B. Jaski, "Cú Chuimne, Ruben, and the compilation of the Collectio canonum Hibernensis", in Peritia 14 (2000), pp. 51–69.
  5. ↑ Charles-Edwards, "Penitential", p. 142.
  6. ↑ F. Liebermann, "Zur Herstellung der Canones Theodori Cantuariensis", in Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte. Kanonistische Abteilung 12 (1922), 387–410, at p. 401.
  7. ↑ Finsterwalder, ed., Die Canones, pp. 155–74.
  8. ↑ See W. Levison's review of Finsterwalder's Die Canones in Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte. Kanonistische Abteilung 19 (1930), pp. 699–707, reprinted as "Zu den Canones Theodori Cantuariensis", in Aus rheinischer und fränkischer Frühzeit. Ausgewählte Aufsätze von Wilhelm Levison (Düsseldorf, 1948), pp. 295–303.
  9. ↑ Interestingly, the earliest extant copy of the Full Form (W7) is not a twenty-nine chapter work, but rather a forty-nine chapter work, the last twenty of which are not Theodorian canons at all but actually comprise the full text of the Libellus responsionum. This arrangement of the text appears to be a later development, the Libellus responsionum was likely not "packaged" with the Paenitentiale Umbrense until the latter worked was later brought into the orbit of Boniface's circle on the Continent; on which see below, Reception. .
  10. ↑ See, e.g., Edwards, "Penitential", and R. Flechner, "The making of the Canons of Theodore", in Peritia 17–18 (2003–2004), pp. 121–43.
  11. ↑ See, e.g., Charles-Edwards, "Penitential", p. 147. The second book was designated the Rechtsbuch or "lawbook" by H.J. Schmitz and P.W. Finsterwalder, and many scholars since have preferred to describe it as a canon law collection rather than a penitential. Finsterwalder's idea that the Rechtsbuch was an originally stand-alone version of Theodorian judgements is no longer accepted; it is now understood that the Rechtsbuch is but an abbreviated form of the second book of the Paenitentiale Umbrense.
  12. ↑ Charles-Edwards, "Penitential", pp. 155–7.
  13. ↑ Charles-Edwards, "Penitential", p. 171.
  14. ↑ See M. Elliot, Anglo-Saxon Canon Law.
  15. ↑ Note that Finsterwalder, ed., Die Canones, believed that the Half Form (= Book II) was an entirely separate work that was earlier than the Paenitentiale Theodori tradition; he believed that the Half Form was merely adopted (rather than assembled anew) by the compiler of the Full Form.
  16. ↑ F.W.H. Wasserschleben, ed., Die Bussordnungen der abendländischen Kirche (Halle, 1851), p. 182 n. 1: "Nur Cod. c [apograph of MS Cb4] hat die Eintheilung in 2 Bücher, a und b zählen alle Kapitel in ununterbrochener Reihenfolge. Da aber die "Praefatio" ausdrücklich von "utrasque regulas" spricht, beide Bücher überdiess wesentlich verschiedene Gegenstände behandeln, und die Codd. e–i, l, m das 2te Buch als ein Ganzes für sich enthalten, so ist jene Eintheilung hier aufgenommen worden." Note that nowhere in the prologue to the Paenitentiale Umbrense does the phrase utrasque regulas appear.
  17. ↑ Finsterwalder in fact believed that Burchard of Hersfeld, later bishop of Würzburg, may have been the author of epilogue: Finsterwalder, ed., Die Canones, pp. 174–80.
  18. ↑ Levison, "Zu den Canones", pp. 299–300. See now Charles-Edwards, "Penitential", pp. 147–48.
  19. ↑ Levison, "Zu den Canones", p. 299, referring to the epilogue's phrase ut diximus.
  20. ↑ Die Canones, ed. Finsterwalder, p. 333.
  21. ↑ Levison, "Zu den Canones", p. 300. There is a change of hand between these two folios, and what appear to be the remains of a folio that has been cut away.
  22. ↑ Levison, "Zu den Canones", p. 300.
  23. ↑ M. Glatthaar, Bonifatius und das Sakrileg. Zur politischen Dimension eines Rechtsbegriffs, Freiburger Beiträge zur mittelalterlichen Geschichte 17 (Frankfurt am Main, 2004), pp. 150–52.
  24. ↑ From Restat igitur onwards (Die Canones, ed. Finsterwalder, pp. 333–34).
  25. ↑ Compare phrases used at the beginning of the second half of the epilogue — dilectioni vestri, an honorific that can only be directed towards a singular individual of superior status — with the familiar address at the beginning of the epilogue — karissimi, which can only be directed towards a plural audience, and one likely to be of either equal or lower rank than the author.
  26. ↑ On the relation of this manuscript with Corbie and Saint-Amand, see B. Bischoff, Die südostdeutschen Schreibschulen und Bibliotheken in der Karolingerzeit 2: Die vorwiegend österreichischen Diözesen (Wiesbaden, 1980), pp. 60 and 84–5.
  27. ↑ See J. Hofmann, "Die Würzburger Dombibliothek im VIII. und IX. Jahrhundert", in Libri sancti Kyliani: die Würzburger Schreibschule und die Dombibliothek im VIII. und IX. Jahrhundert, eds B. Bischoff and J. Hofmann, Quellen und Forschungen zur Geschichte des Bistums und Hochstifts Würzburg 6 (Würzburg, 1952), pp. 61–172, at pp. 106–107.
  28. ↑ As Hofmann, "Die Würzburger Dombibliothek", p. 107, indicates, the manuscript originally contained a lectionary, and still does on fols 13–24. The first 12 folios have been erased and one these has been written anew the beginning of the Paenitentiale Umbrense. The erasing was clearly performed page by page as the scribe progressed through his copying of the Paenitentiale; for the erasing stops at the end of fol. 12, at the conclusion of c. 12.3. Why the scribe ceased erasing and copying at this point is unclear, though certainly it had been his/her original intention to copy out an entire Full Form of the Paenitentiale Umbrense, as is evident from this copy's preceding capitula, which registers titles for the full Fulda Recension text (i.e. all twenty-eight chapters).
  29. ↑ This copy of the Paenitentiale Umbrense is an apograph of the W9 copy.
  30. ↑ Two early modern apographs of Cb4 exist: one is the eighteenth-century paper manuscript Eton College Library, Bp 5.16, a transcript prepared by Muriall; the other is the seventeenth-century Saint-Germain paper manuscript Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, Lat. 13452, prepared for the Maurists (previously designated as Codex Sangermanensis 940 and 912). Wasserschleben (who did not have access to Cb4) collated the latter using the siglum c; Finsterwalder used Sgr. The Eton college transcript has never been collated.
  31. ↑ These excerpts include: Decretum Burchardi cc. XIX.5 [item nos 114, 116, 115, 184, 56, 54, 110, 117 according to Schmitz], XIX.6, XIX.7 ["ergo superbus – castitatem uoue"], XIX.5 [item nos 183, 182, 187], XIX.7 ["deus cuius indulgentia – miseratione saluemur" (add. mg.: "Deinde sacerdos prosternat se in terram cum penitente et inprimis decantet psalmum Domine ne in furore II. Per. Deinde cante psalmos Miserere m. Quod gloriaris in malicia. Deus in nomine Benedic. II")], "deus sub cuius oculis – alienus a uenia. Per dominum", XIX.5 [item nos 119, 1–11, 12 (partial), 13 (partial) 14], IV.24–5, XIX.3; "postea sacerdos cantet VII psalmos penitentię super ipsos penitentes dicatque orationem hanc. Deus qui confitentium – tib mentibus famulentur. Deinde interroget sacerdos de symbolo postea dicat. Vis dimittere illis peccata – uobis peccata uestra. Resp. Volo et non aliter suscipiat confessionem penitentis nisi prius ipse his qui in se peccauerunt. His ita premissis sacerdos alloquatur penitentem dicens. Frater noli erubescere peccata tua confiteri namque et ego peccator sum – non utique diiudicaremur"; "De his qui cum maiore uel minore membrorum numero uel quicumque cum duobus capitibus in uno corpore aut duobus corporibus in uno capite uel certe de genere monstruoso nascuntur qualiter resurrecturi credantur. De hac questione ita beatus augustinus eloquitur. Hęc enim ait monstra quę nascuntur et uiuunt – ita sine ulla infirmitate spiritui suo inmortaliter adherebit"; "Quod hi qui nunc a bestiis comeduntur aut diuersa laniatione truncantur resurgentes integritatem sui corporis obtinebunt. Non perit deo ait sanctus augustinus terrena materies de qua mortalium creator – in quantum puluis lupi et leonis est et tamen resurgat in quantum puluis est hominis"; "De adulterio feminę non celanda et alia uxore non deducenda et penitentia eius recipienda. Hieremias dixit ad pastorem angelum permitte mihi domine ut te pauca interrogem. Dic inquid si uxorem quis habeat in domo fidelem postea et eam adulteram deprehenderit quero – aliam non debet ducere ne penitentię occassionem mulieri auferat. Hęc ratio tam uiro quam mulieri communis est"; and "Clericus qui semen fuderit non tangendo per mala cogitationes VI dies peniteat. Si tangit cum manu VI dies peniteat. Si diacnous XX dies. Si presbiter ebdomadas III. Prespiter si semen per cogitationem fuderit VII dies peniteat. Monachus similiter. Qui uoluntarie semen fudit in ecclesia si clericus est XIV dies si monachus aut diaconus XXX dies si presbiter XL si episcopus L dies peniteat. Qui concupiscit mente fornicare et non potest I annum maxime in tribus XLmis peniteat".
  32. ↑ The final third of the manuscript's last folio, fol. 113, has been cut away, and reinforced with blank parchment. The explicit for Book I (= cc. 1–15) of the Paenitentiale Umbrense ends on fol. 113r immediately before the portion that has been cutaway, and Michael Kautz (Bibliotheca Laureshamensis digital: Pal. lat. 485 – Wissenschaftliche Beschreibung, p. 1) is almost certainly correct in claiming that no text has gone missing from the bottom of fol. 113r as a result of the cutting and reinforcement. The same cannot be said with regards to the verso of the folio, however, for it has been abraded away entirely. Perhaps with the aid of ultraviolet light it could be determined whether this page (fol. 113v) once continued with the text of Book II (= cc. 16–29).
  33. ↑ According to Asbach, Das Poenitentiale Remense, pp. 19 and 41–2, an entire gathering is currently missing between fols 65v and 66r, making it impossible to determine whether we here have a copy of the complete Paenitentiale Remense or of a mixed version of the same, as we find in St3.
  34. ↑ Due to a folio having been displaced in its exemplar, this copy of the Paenitentiale Umbrense begins on the final page of the codex (fol. 112v); Mordek, Kirchenrecht, p. 224 n. 46. The text of the Paenitentiale Umbrense thus begins on fol. 112v (which ends partway through 17.3) and then picks up again on fol. 84r (partway through 17.7). The repositioning of fol. 112 probably explains why this copy of the Paenitentiale Umbrense currently lacks cc. 17.4–6. Mordek is in error specifying that "beginnt das sog. Pönitentiale Theodors fol. 112v bereits mit Buch II, Kap. 1,1 [...]; der Text setzt sich fort fol. 82r mit: benedicere [...]". Fol. 112v in fact begins In eclesia quam mortuorum cadauera ... (= 16.4), and the text resumes on fol. 84r, not 82r.
  35. ↑ See Mordek, Bibliotheca, p. 409.
  36. ↑ See Mordek, Bibliotheca, p. 410.
  37. ↑ According to Mordek, Bibliotheca, p. 410, fols 80–195 of this manuscript (which contain the Collectio canonum Sancti Amandi, the Libellus responsionum, Pope Gregory II's Epistula ad Bonifatium, and the Half Form of the Paenitentiale Umbrense) are likely a copy — modified with the help of a Collectio Hispana of either the Gallican or Pseudo-Isidorian form — of fols 128–266 of Paris Lat. 3846 (P26).
  38. ↑ According to Woesthuis, "Two manuscripts", p. 181, this manuscript "fragment originally constituted the last three quires of a complete manuscript once kept in the cathedral church of Beauvais."
  39. ↑ It is not yet clear whether this copy of the Paenitentiale Umbrense lacks cc. 16.1–3 and/or 25.5–26.9 (and/or perhaps others), as other witnesses in this table do.
  40. ↑ See Mordek, Bibliotheca, p. 413.
  41. ↑ According to Woesthuis, "Two manuscripts", p. 181, this manuscript once contained a copy of Collectio canonum Quesnelliana; see also Mordek, Bibliotheca, p. 413.
  42. ↑ It is not yet clear whether this copy of the Paenitentiale Umbrense lacks c. 25.5, as other Collectio canonum vetus Gallica witnesses in this table do, though according to Finsterwalder, Die Canones, p. 324, it does.
  43. ↑ It is not yet clear whether this copy of the Paenitentiale Umbrense lacks cc. 16.1–3 and/or 25.5–26.9 (and/or perhaps others), as other witnesses in this table do.
  44. ↑ As reported by F. Maassen, "Bibliotheca latina juris canonici manuscripta. Erster Theil: die Canonensammlungen vor Pseudo-Isidor", in 6 parts, published between 1866–1867 in SB. Wien, phil.-hist. Classe 53 (pp. 373–427), 54 (pp. 157–288), 56 (pp. 157–212), at vol. 54, p. 232.
  45. ↑ This dating according to L. Böhringer (= Mahadevan), "Der eherechtliche Traktat im Paris. Lat. 12445, einer Arbeitshandschrift Hinkmars von Reims", in Deutsches Archiv 46 (1990), pp. 18-47, at p. 20.
  46. ↑ See discussion below under Reception.
  47. ↑ It is perhaps significant that Martin's Capitula is also part of the Collectio canonum Sancti Amandi, whose three principal witnesses (B5, P6, P26) are as to content somewhat similar to P39. According to C. W. Barlow, ed., Martini episcopi Bracarensis opera omnia, Papers and Monographs of the American Academy in Rome 12 (New Haven, 1950), p. 92, the P39 copy of Martin's Capitula derives from the original Collectio canonum Hispana tradition, but has been corrected by a ninth-century hand against a copy of the Capitula deriving from either the Collectio canonum Hispana Gallica Augustodunensis or Pseudo-Isidore traditions.
  48. ↑ On fol. 166v, a marginal note keyed to these chapters has been entered. The note claims to have been added by none other than Hincmar of Laons. The added chapters were later crossed out. On Hincmar's signature, see Böhringer, "Der eherechtliche Traktat", p. 23, and Projekt Pseudoisidor, eds K.-G. Schon and K. Zechiel-Eckes, MGH, at www.pseudoisidor.mgh.de/html/ca_03_02.htm (last updated 2006).
  49. ↑ See discussion below under Reception.
  50. ↑ Edited by Böhringer, "Der eherechtliche Traktat", pp. 38–47.
  51. ↑ This letter, added by a contemporary hand to a blank space on fol. 204, has probably been excerpted from the Collectio canonum Pithouensis. It is here erroneously ascribed to Pope Leo I. The same version of this letter, and with the attribution to Pope Leo, was used repeatedly by Hincmar of Reims; see Böhringer, "Der eherechtliche Traktat, p. 25ff., where she discusses Hincmar's use of this letter, and of the several decretal letters that follow hereafter.
  52. ↑ See Böhringer, "Der eherechtliche Traktat", pp. 27–31 with n. 24, where she describes the excerpts in detail, and explains that they share many readings with the P26 copy of the Collectio canonum Sancti Amandi.
  53. ↑ According to Mordek, Kirchenrecht, p. 224 n. 47, a missing folio (between fols 126 and 127) has caused gap in the text. The text jumps from catholica non sunt (= Paenitentiale Umbrense 24.1) at the end of fol. 126v, to et idolatria (= Paenitentiale Umbrense 26.2). There is thus no way to be sure if this copy of the Paenitentiale Umbrense originally omitted c. 25.5 as all other Collectio canonum vetus Gallica witnesses do.
  54. ↑ On these additions see Mordek, Kirchenrecht, pp. 220–21 and 324 with n. 36.
  55. ↑ These canons are described by J. F. von Schulte, Vier Weingartner Jetzt Stuttgarter Handschriften, Sitzungsberichte der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Classe 117.11 (Vienna 1889), at pp. 17–18.
  56. ↑ Asbach, Das Poenitentiale Remense, pp. 53 and 210, and compare to the copy of the Paenitentiale Remense in Br7.
  57. ↑ According to Mordek, Kirchenrecht, p. 609, a scribe has marked these chapters as a continuation of the earlier Collectio canonum vetus Gallica text.
  58. ↑ According to Mordek, Kirchenrecht, p. 224 n. 48, at least one folio has gone missing between fols 80 and 81, leading to a gap in the text of the Paenitentiale Umbrense. It is therefore impossible to tell if this copy of Paenitentiale Umbrense also omitted cc. 16.1–3 as other Collectio canonum vetus Gallica witnesses in this table do. Nor is it yet clear whether this copy of the Paenitentiale Umbrense lacks c. 25.5, though according to Finsterwalder, Die Canones, p. 324, it does.
  59. ↑ Described by Von Schulte, Vier Weingartner, p. 20
  60. ↑ For a detailed description of the contents of this manuscript see L. Mahadevan (= Böhringer), "Überlieferung und Verbreitung des Bussbuchs Capitula Iudiciorum", Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte. Kanonistische Abteilung 72 (1986), 17–75, at pp. 35–6.
  61. ↑ Meens, Het tripartite boeteboek, p. 77, is in error specifying "U II,12,10 tot II,12,14".
  62. ↑ See Asbach, Das Poenitentiale Remense, p. 35.
  63. ↑ Haggenmüller, Die Überlieferung, p.111.
  64. ↑ The remaining contents of this manuscript are described in detail by Mordek, Bibliotheca capitularium, pp. 894–98.
  65. ↑ B. Bischoff, Katalog der festländischen Handschriften des neunten Jahrhunderts mit Ausnahme der wisigotischen, 2 vols (Wiesbaden, 1998–2004), I, no., no. 28.
  66. ↑ This fragment consists of two bifolia. They are presently foliated sequentially (= fols 1r–4v), but were originally part of two separate gatherings in the same manuscript.
  67. ↑ See Meens, Het tripartite boeteboek, p. 32 n. 38, reporting conflicting datings by Haggenmüller and Kottje. The colophon on fol. 4r indicates that the text was copied by one "Rathbald"; see Bibliotheca Universitatis Leidensis, codices manuscripti I: codices Vulcaniani (Leiden, 1910), p. 50.
  68. ↑ The preface (on fol. 1r–1v) runs from the beginning (INCIPIT PENITENTIALIS DOMNI ...) to only shortly after the first paragraph, breaking off at the bottom of fol. 1v at homo non audit neque. The text on fol 2r begins in c. 4.8 at ecclesia et inter laicos and continues until the bottom of fol. 2v, where it breaks off in c. 5.1 at apostolorum iudicatur ut episcopi.
  69. ↑ The chapters of this penitential (which runs from fol. 3r–4r) appear to have been drawn largely from the Excarpsus Cummeani and include the following: the ending of Excarpsus Cummeani c. 6.24; Paenitentiale Cummeani c. (9)10.3; Excarpsus Cummeani cc. 1.38, 6.26, 13.7–8, 13.10a; Paenitentiale Ecgberhti c. 9.11; Paenitentiale Parisiense simplex c. 45; an unidentified canon ("Qui cum pecodibus turpiter commiscuerit IIII annos peniteat); Paenitentiale Umbrense c. 7.3; an unidentified canon ("Qui fraude uel preda uescitur dimedio anno peniteat"); and "Quomodo possumus ... confessores cum lacrimis" (the Edictio Bonifatii). The text concludes at the bottom of fol. 4r with "EXPLICIT PENITENTIALIS deo gratias amen rbt Bbldxs cxk cpn cfdkt deus uk tbm bftfrnbm bmen." The latter is a partial substitution cipher meaning "Ratbaldus cui concedit deus vitam aeternam amen"; see Bénédictins du Bouveret, Colophons de manuscrits occidentaux des origines au XVIe siècle, Spicilegii Friburgensis subsidia 2–7 (Fribourg, 1965-1982), V, p. 219 (no. 16500).
  70. ↑ It was Haggenmüller, Die Überlieferung, p. 69, who discovered that this manuscript fragment contains a partial copy of the Canones Basilienses. However, he was in error in specifying the Canones Basilienses as on fol. 2r; rather, the text of the Canones Basilienses is found on fol. 4v (see Meens, Het tripartite boeteboek, p. 32 n. 38). The text is written by the same hand that copied fols 1r–4r, though parts of it have faded and a much later (prhaps early modern) hand has traced over these parts in order to make faded words more visible.
  71. ↑ The scribe identifies himself as "Iohannes", the same Iohannes whom T.A.M. Bishop believed also copied Worcester Cathedral Library, Q. 8, fols 164–71 + Add. 7, Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 285, fols 75-131, El Escorial, Real Biblioteca de San Lorenzo, E.II.1, and Rouen, Bibliothèque municipale, MS 1385, fols 20-6: T.A.M. Bishop, English Caroline Minuscule (Oxford, 1971), pp. xxv and 18. Bodley 311 was already in England by the beginning of the eleventh century. This is evidenced by the fact that it contains on fol. 1r an Old English gloss ("eorðe", glossing "terra") and an Old English inscription, now partly-erased inscription ("************(u)lf sancta marian for (ælfgy)þ ****** hys gemæccan"; see N. R. Ker, Catalogue of manuscripts containing Anglo-Saxon (Oxford, 1957; repr. with supplement, 1990), p. 360, no. 307. It is not known for certain where in England the manuscript was during the period from ca. 1000 to 1327, though the inscription suggests that it was early on with a church dedicated to Saint Mary (possibly Buckfast abbey, to which a connected manuscript, London, Lambeth Palace, MS 149, seems also to have been dedicated; see P. Conner, Anglo-Saxon Exeter: A Tenth-Century Cultural History [Woodbridge, 1993], p. 15, and http://www.kemble.asnc.cam.ac.uk/node/132). By 1327 the manuscript was in the possession of the library of Exeter cathedral, as is indicated by an Exeter catalogue prepared in that year. It has been suggested that the book may have been in Exeter as early as ca. 1050, brought thence from Worcester by Leofric, bishop of Exeter 1050–1072; see, e.g., Richard Gameson, "Book Production and Decoration at Worcester in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries", in St Oswald of Worcester: Life and Influence, eds N. Brooks and C. Cubitt, Studies in the Early History of Britain, The Makers of England 2 (London, 1996), pp. 194–243, at p. 240. However, Patrick Conner, Anglo-Saxon Exeter: A Tenth-Century Cultural History (Woodbridge, 1993), pp. 15 and 20, places Bodley 311 in Exeter already in the tenth century.
  72. ↑ The pages containing the Liber ex lege Moysi (pp. 1–12) are disordered, so that the text does not follow the sequence of chapters as printed by S. Meeder, "The Liber ex lege Moysi: notes and text", Journal of medieval Latin 19 (2009), 173–218.
  73. ↑ Ex Adam in diluuium anni dup milia CCXLII ... Iesus in seculo fuit XXXI, in alio loco dicitur XXXIII; Prologus in quo supputat ab Adam usque ad Ninum annos ... ergo a principio usque ad natiuitatem domini Iesus Christi colliguntur anni V milia CCXXVIII
  74. ↑ Ab Adam usque ad Ninum regem ... anni V milia et CCCLXXXII. This is clearly a companion piece to the earlier chronological notes, which probably means the intervening chapters on Narcissus and penance were interpolated in the exemplar.
  75. ↑ See Bieler, ed., The Irish penitentials, pp. 20–4. According to Bieler, this section of the manuscript, which shares contents with Paris 12021, derives from an eighth-century collection of Irish materials housed in Brittany.
  76. ↑ These excerpts include: Ancyra c. 10 (~ versio Dionysiana II); an unknown version of Ancyra c. 14 (De eo quod res et possessiones ab ęclesiis abstractæ quando non habent principem ad eam reuocandae sunt); Ancyra cc. 15 and 19–21 (~ versio Dionysiana II); an unknown version of Ancyra c. 22 (De homicidio non sponte commisso V [?] qui homicidium fecerint per penitentiam annorum VII in communione aeclesię recipiant). Given the context of this manuscript, it is notable that the ancient canons in this small collection (except the second) specify specific lengths of penance for given infractions in a manner similar to the medieval penitentials.
  77. ↑ These excerpts include: Neocaesarea c. 2 (~ versio Dionysiana II); Paenitentiale Vinniani cc. 5–9, with addition (igitur peñi supplicatione necessaria. Qui conuersus ingemuit ... quæ gessit in sęculo); and Paenitentiale Vinniani cc. 18–20. Given the context of this manuscript, it is notable that the ancient canon in this small collection specifies a specific length of penance for a given infraction, in a manner similar to the medieval penitentials.
  78. ↑ Included here are excerpts from Isidore's Liber officiorum, Liber pontificalis, decretals of popes Innocent I and Leo I, and (Pseudo-?)Augustine on the incarnation; see Maassen, "Bibliotheca latina juris canonici manuscripta, vol. 54, p. 225.
  79. ↑ These are the same excerpts as are found in the additions to Collectio canonum vetus Gallica witnesses; see Mordek, Kirchenrecht, 153–54 and 257.
  80. ↑ Included here are excerpts from the Bible, Jerome, Josephus, Eucherius, and Augustine; see Maassen, "Bibliotheca latina juris canonici manuscripta", vol. 54, pp. 225–26.
  81. ↑ Included here are excerpts from the Bible, Jerome, and Isidore, among others; see Maassen, "Bibliotheca latina juris canonici manuscripta", vol. 54, p. 226.
  82. ↑ Edited in PL 105, cols 206–08.
  83. ↑ Included here are excerpts from the Bible, Sedulius Scottus, De Rectoribus Christianis cc. 8–9, Collectio canonum Hibernensis c. 25.15, John Cassian, Collationes 5.24, and Collectio canonum Turonensis cc. 131 and 136, as well as several proverbia Graecorum.
  84. ↑ Included here are excerpts from the Bible, Augustine's De consensu evangelistarum c. 2.3, Prosper of Aquitaine's Chronicon, Orosius's Historia adversus paganos, Pseudo-Augustine's De heredibus (Sunt multa quae separant hominem a paterno sepulchro ... a patre filius deo oblatus), and Pseudo-Clement's Recognitiones c. 9.4.3.
  85. ↑ Bieler is in error specifying here an "abridged" copy of the Canones Hibernenses IV (= Wass. III); Bieler, Irish penitentials, p. 22. In fact, this is a complete copy, making it the second complete copy of Canones Hibernenses IV in this manuscript.
  86. ↑ See Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, vol. 56 (ed. I. Hilberg), epist. 149.6, p. 362 lines 12–21.
  87. ↑ Quare fuit diluuius super terram? Responsio. Angeli concupierunt filias hominum in terra quod erant pulcræ nimis; acceperant eas sibi uxores; nati sunt eorum filii; illi fuerunt gigantes et multa mala faciebant super terram; propterea fuit diluuium.
  88. ↑ See Oxford, Bodleian Library, Hatton 42, fol. 7v.
  89. ↑ For discussion see M. Elliot, "Boniface, Incest, and the Earliest Extant Version of Pope Gregory I’s Libellus responsionum (JE 1843)", in Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte. Kanonistische Abteilung 100 (2014), p. 69 n. 15, and K. Ubl, Inzestverbot und Gesetzgebung: die Konstruktion eines Verbrechens (300–1100), Millennium-Studien 20 (Berlin, 2008), p. 000.
  90. ↑ This copy of Theodulf's Capitulare I is incomplete due to two missing folios; see P. Brommer, ed., Capitula episcoporum. Teil I, MGH Capit. episc. (Hanover, 1984), p. 89.
  91. ↑ Maassen, "Bibliotheca latina juris canonici manuscripta, vol. 54, pp. 241–42, is in error specifying these testimonia as originating with Leo's letter to Bishop Flavianus (a.k.a. the Tomus Leonis: see following item in this manuscript); in fact, Leo originally appended these testimonia to his Epistula CLXV, directed to Emperor Leo.
  92. ↑ On the various versions this letter takes in medieval canon law collections, see Maassen, Geschichte, pp. 358–59 no. 381.2. The version here is that found in the collections of the acts of Ephesus and of Chalcedon; it is edited in Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum, series prima, 4 vols in 14 parts, ed. E. Schwartz (but J. Straub for vol. 4 parts 1 and 3) (Berlin and Leipzig, 1927–84), vol. II.2, pp. 82–4.
  93. ↑ On the two versions this letter takes in medieval canon law collections, see Maassen, Geschichte, p. 359 no. 381.3. The version here is that found in the collections of the acts of Ephesus and of Chalcedon; it is edited by Schwartz, Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum, vol. II.2, pp. 86–90.
  94. ↑ Edited by Schwartz, Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum, vol. II.2, pp. 90–1.
  95. ↑ According to C. I. Hammer, "The Social Landscape of the Prague Sacramentary: the Prosopography of an Eighth-Century Mass-Book", in Traditio 54 (1999), 41–80, at p. 41, "almost certainly before autumn, 792."
  96. ↑ The portion of this manuscript described here, fols 131–45, appears to be a smaller part of what was once a larger volume, and these eight folios appear to be from the last two gatherings of that volume; see Das Prager sakramentar [Cod. 0.83 (Fol. 1-120) der Bibliothek des metropolitankapitels]. Vol. II: Prolegomena und Textausgabe, ed. A. Dold and L. Eizenhöfer, Texte und Arbeiten herausgegeben durch die Erzabtei Beuron, I. Abteilung: Beiträge zur Ergründung des älteren lateinischen christlichen Schrifttums und Gottesdienstes 38–42 (Beuron, 1949), pp. 29–31. Fol. 131r begins partway through what was once probably a complete copy of the Canones Gregrii.
  97. ↑ According to Dold–Eizenhöfer, eds, Das Prager sakramentar, p. 31, three folios are missing from the section of this manuscript that contains the Libellus responsionum. But according to Hammer, "The Social Landscape", p. 42, the same section wants only two folios.
  98. ↑ See, e.g., Haggenmüller, Die Überlieferung, pp. 25 and 64. This error appears to have originated with F. Kunstmann, ed., Die Lateinischen Pönitentialbücher der Angelsachsen, mit geschichtlicher Einleitung, (Mainz, 1844), p. 41.
  99. ↑ The contents of the Collectio 77 capitulorum are as follows: Epitome Hispana (excerpts); Collectio canonum Dacheriana (excerpts); Libellus responsionum (excerpts: cc. 1–3 and 8); Capitula iudiciorum (excerpts: cc. 1.1–2.2, 6, 8.1, 9 [partial], 13 [partial], 14.1–2 [partial, augmented], 23.1 [partial], 16.5 [first sentence], 20.1–21, 23.2 [partial], 30.1, 34.1 [partial]); Iudicium Clementis; and Caesarius's letter Ecce manifestissime. The Heiligenkreuz copy of the Capitula iudiciorum includes at least four chapters that are not found in the Munich copy. These additional chapters include cc. 15.1–4. They may also include cc. 8.2–3, 10.1–6, 11.1–2, 12.1–3 and 19, for Schmitz (who records variants from Heiligenkreuz 217 under the siglum "b") does not explicitly state that Heiligenkreuz 217 omits these chapters; however, neither does he collate readings for them, so it may well be that they are omitted and he neglected to mention so. F.W.H. Wasserschleben, ed., Die Bussordnungen der abendländischen Kirche (Halle, 1851), pp. 533–35 edits the Iudicium Clementis from Munich 3853 (reprinting Kunstmann's text) and gives variants from Heiligenkreuz 217 under the siglum 'a'. A large portion of the text of the Caesarian letter (ed. de Clercq, p. 93 line 182–p. 94 line 225) is missing from Munich 3853, apparently due to a folio having gone missing from either this manuscript or its exemplar.
  100. ↑ According to K. Zechiel-Eckes, "Zur kirchlichen Rechtspraxis im späteren 8. Jahrhundert: Die Zwei-Bücher-Sammlung der Kölner Dom-Handschrift 210 (fol. 122–151)", in Mittelalterliche Handschriften der Kölner Dombibliothek: Zweites Symposium der Diözesan- und Dombibliothek Köln zu den Dom-Manuskripten (1. bis 2. Dezember 2006) (Cologne, 2008), pp. 187–229, at p. 190, this section of the manuscript may originally have been separate from the preceding section (fols 1–121), which is copied by different hands, and on different parchment with different ruling and differing quire arrangements (fols 122–151 are all gathered in ternions, whereas fols 1–121 vary in their gathering between quaternions, ternions, quinternions, etc.). For discussion of the contents of the first section of the manuscript — a "truncated" and interpolated A version of the Collectio canonum Hibernensis — see M. Gorman, "Patristic and pseudo-Patristic citations in the Collectio Hibernensis", in Revue Bénédictine 121 (2011), 19–93, at p. 83, and Zechiel-Eckes, "Zur kirchlichen Rechtspraxis", pp. 205–06. Zechiel-Eckes (p. 206) points out that this "truncated" copy of the Hibernensis has been augmented with over 300 additional excerpts from the Collectio canonum Sancti Mauri, the same source collection used for the second. Thus, if the two halves of this manuscript were indeed originally separate, then they are still likely to have been produced in the same scriptorium.
  101. ↑ Zechiel-Eckes, "Zur kirchlichen Rechtspraxis", pp. 205–06.
  102. ↑ See preceding note.
  103. ↑ The collection is discussed in detail by Zechiel-Eckes, "Zur kirchlichen Rechtspraxis", who indicates that the source for most of its material is the late sixth-century Gallic Collectio canonum Sancti Mauri. It is notable for containing, besides excerpts from the Paenitentiale Umbrense, a selection of canons drawn from Greek, African and Frankish conciliar councils, but reworded so as to bring them into line with syntax typical of the penitential genre. For example, canon 7 of the council of Ancyra (Isid.vulg. versio) is rendered (on fol. 126v) as: "Hi qui festis diebus paganorum interfuerunt et suas epulas ibidem portauerunt atque commederunt II annos peniteat [sic] ut Ancyritarum sinodus". Almost all of the canons excerpted include at their end a brief inscription indicating whence they came. Unlike the other chapters in this collection, the Paenitentiale Umbrense excerpts do not come with inscriptions identifying their source (except Paenitentiale Umbrense 28.1 on fol. 131v, which concludes with "ut Theodorīs"). Kottje's report ("Busspraxis und Bussritus", in Segni e riti nella chiesa altomedievale occidentale, 11–17 aprile 1985, 2 vols, Settimane di Studio del Centro Italiano di studi sull'alto medioevo [Spoleto, 1987], I, pp. 369–403, at p. 376 n. 30; cf. Meens, Het tripartite boeteboek, p. 32 n. 39) that this manuscript contains a copy of the Canones Gregorii is mistaken. Only the Paenitentiale Umbrense contains sources for all the known Theodorian canons excerpted here. Moreover, the readings of the Paenitentiale Umbrense are closest to those of the excerpts, the one exception being the canon on fol. 130r, which agrees more closely with Canones Cottoniani 200 and Canones Gregorii 44b, than with Paenitentiale Umbrense c. 21.9b. It is important to note that one of the excerpts (on fol. 131v, ~ Paenitentiale Umbrense 28.2) includes a phrase not found in any extant recension of the Theodorian canons: "XII debent in testimonium venire". On this evidence, it would seem unwise to rule out the following possibility: that the source for these Theodorian excerpts was not the Paenitentiale Umbrense itself, but rather a lost sixth recension of Theodorian canons, a recension with readings close to the Paenitentiale Umbrense but also with many subtle differences and with at least one additional canon ("XII debent in testimonium venire") not found in any of the five other surviving recensions.
  104. ↑ For a detailed description of the contents of this manuscript see Mahadevan, "Überlieferung und Verbreitung", pp. 21–3.
  105. ↑ See R. Kottje, Die Bussbücher Halitgars von Cambrai und des Hrabanus Maurus, Beiträge zur Geschichte und Quellenkunde des Mittelalters 8 (Berlin, 1980), p. 33. According to Mordek (reported in Mahadevan, "Überlieferung und Verbreitung", p. 23), this collection is based on an Italian exemplar, and has similarities with the Collectio canonum of Anselm of Lucca and with the Collection 2 librorum of Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. lat. 3832.
  106. ↑ See L. Böhringer (= Mahadevan), "Zwei Fragmente der römischen Synode 769 im Codex London, British Library, Add. 16413", in Aus Archiven und Bibliotheken. Festschrift für Raymund Kottje zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. H. Mordek, Freiburger Beiträge zur mittelalterlichen Geschichte 3 (Frankfurt am Main, 1992), pp. 93–105. For detailed description of the contents of this manuscript see Mahadevan, "Überlieferung und Verbreitung", pp. 24–8, and F. Madden et al., Catalogue of Additions to the Manuscripts in the British Museum in the years MDCCCXLVI–MDCCCXLVII (London, 1864), pp. 202–04.
  107. ↑ This short item listed in Madden, Catalogue of Additions, p. 203, but not in Mahadevan, "Überlieferung und Verbreitung".
  108. ↑ Based on the incipit-explicit provided by Mahadevan, "Überlieferung und Verbreitung", p. 26 (Exortacio sacerdotis qualiter ad penitentiam venientes praedicentur. Quomodo unusquisque ad penitenciam se revocet ... per omnia saecula), it does not seem that this is the same Sermo de penitentia that is found in V23+Mb2.
  109. ↑ Mahadevan, "Überlieferung und Verbreitung, p. 27, reports here the presence of Paenitentiale Bedae cc. 10–12; however, the incipit–explicit she gives ("Unde supra. Hieronymus presbiter de redimenda peccata. Duodecim triduane ... in corpore requiescere videtur") agrees rather more with the prefatory material in the Paenitentiale Remenese (ed. Asbach, Das Poenitentiale Remense, p. 10 line 12–p. 14 line 14) — note that the paragraph ending "in corpore requiescere videtur" is not known to be found in any extant copies of the Paenitentiale Bedae, all of which rather end with the chapter '"Quando vero ... non desinat corpus et sangunem Christi communicare". This manuscript was not discussed by Haggenmüller, Die Überlieferung.
  110. ↑ See Körntgen, Studien, p. 127, and Mahadevan, "Überlieferung und Verbreitung", p. 28, and compare to the copy of the Canones Gregorii in V23+Mb2.
  111. ↑ According to Mahadevan, "Überlieferung und Verbreitung", p. 28, these include Vetus Gallica cc. 66.1–2 (= Synodus II Patricii, cc. 1–2), part of c. 36.12a (= Constitutum Silvestri), and cc. 43, 64.7, 39 and 66.10 (= Synodus II Patricii, c. 10). Mahadevan notes (p. 28 n. 56) that further chapters in this manuscript (namely cc. 1–12 of the canons of the council of Rome in 721 [fol. 13r–v], as well as certain other chapters scattered among the series of several conciliar canons and excerpts from decretals and patristic texts concerning clerical offices [fols 13v–18v]) may also have been drawn from the Vetus Gallica.
  112. ↑ This text found also in V23+Mb2. It is edited by Kottje, Die Bußbücher, pp. 280–82, though not from either of these manuscripts.
  113. ↑ See Mordek, Kirchenrecht, pp. 104–06, and Böhringer (= Mahadevan), "Zwei Fragmente".
  114. ↑ The manuscript rubric attributes these excerpts to beati Gregorii; however, according to Körntgen, Studien, 208 n. 826, it is still unclear whether these are excerpts from the Canones Gregorii or Paenitentiale Umbrense "[d]a die Exzerpte keiner der bekannten Überlieferungen in Reihenfolge und Wortlaut entsprechen".
  115. ↑ The series has been edited by K. Hildenbrand, Untersuchungen über die germanischen Pönitentialbücher (Würzburg, 1851), pp. 126–29.
  116. ↑ Not collated in Finsterwalder's Die Canones Theodori, though mentioned by him on p. 35.
  117. ↑ See http://www.manuscripta-mediaevalia.de/hs/katalogseiten/HSK0534_b080_jpg.htm. The date of this addition is roughly coeval with the copy of Canones Gregorii cc. 1–4 found in Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 21587.
  118. ↑ See http://www.manuscripta-mediaevalia.de/?xdbdtdn!%22hsk%200628a%22&dmode=doc#|4
  119. ↑ These excerpts were likely copied from Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 6245.
  120. ↑ For a detailed description of the contents of this manuscript see Mahadevan, "Überlieferung und Verbreitung", p. 33, and Paenitentialia minora Franciae et Italiae saeculi VIII–IX, eds R. Kottje et al., CCSL 156 (Turnhout, 1994), pp. xlvi–vii.
  121. ↑ Mahadevan, "Überlieferung und Verbreitung", p. 33, noted that these first three items (Cassian excerpts, Paenitentiale Columbani B prologue, and Quotienscumque instruction) make up the preface to Wasserschleben's edition of the Paenitentiale Merseburgense a. The most recent editors of the early Frankish penitentials, however (Kottje, et al.), do not consider these elements to form part of the Merseburgense a.
  122. ↑ On the textual relationship between the first part of this prologue and the Quotienscumque instruction, see Körntgen, Studien, pp. 121–50.
  123. ↑ Not collated in Finsterwalder's Die Canones Theodori, though discussed by him on p. 76. He refers to this manuscript as the Sangermanensisfragment.
  124. ↑ Gorman, "Patristic and pseudo-Patristic citations", p. 85, notes that at this time Fleury was under the abbacy of Theodulf, bishop of Orléans.
  125. ↑ See Maassen, Geschichte, pp. 837–38.
  126. ↑ Gorman, "Patristic and pseudo-Patristic citations", p. 87, notes that "Quires are missing after f. 136v", which is currently the final folio in the manuscript. Gorman suggests that the missing quires would have contained further excerpts from books 45–67 of the Collectio canonum Hibernensis.
  127. ↑ Gorman, "Patristic and pseudo-Patristic citations", p. 86 n. 24, suggests as much, and edits the short preface that introduces this "continuation".
  128. ↑ These seven palimpsest fragments currently contain penitential canons that, some time around the year 800, were written over uncial copies of a lectionary and sacramentary. On the contents and original unity of these fragments, see Körntgen, Studien, pp. 98–108.
  129. ↑ The order of contents given here is that of the reconstructed manuscript as presented by Körntgen, Studien, pp. 100–108.
  130. ↑ Note that it is not clear on the basis of Körntgen’s reconstruction of this manuscript whether this series is part of the same penitential text as the Paenitentiale Ecgberhti material that precedes it.
  131. ↑ According to Körntgen, Studien, p. 101, this series includes: Paenitentiale Umbrense 5.3–5; Paenitentiale Umbrense 5.2; Paenitentiale Cummeani 7/8.1–2; Paenitentiale Umbrense 5.14; Paenitentiale Umbrense 5.7–8; Paenitentiale Umbrense 5.10; Paenitentiale Umbrense 5.1; Paenitentiale Burgundense c. 36; Paenitentiale Umbrense 5.11; Paenitentiale Umbrense 13.1–4; Paenitentiale Umbrense 9.12; Paenitentiale Umbrense 10.1–2.
  132. ↑ Haggenmüller, Die Überlieferung, pp. 292–93, has argued that this is the beginning of the Paenitentiale additivum Pseudo-Bedae–Ecgberhti; however, it is just as likely that this is an abbreviated version of the two prefaces preceding the Paenitentiale Bedae as found in Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Cod. Lat. 2223 (see next note).
  133. ↑ The sentence reads: Institutio illa sancta que fiebat in diebus patrum nostrorum et reliqua. The origin of the second Bedan preface is controversial. Haggenmüller presumed, without argument (see e.g. Die Überlieferung, pp. 132, 147, 149, 151), that it was merely an abbreviation of the Ecgberhtine prologue (also beginning Institutio illa), but it is just as likely that the Ecgberhtine prologue is an expansion of the second Bedan preface. It is significant, for instance, that the earliest extant copy of the Paenitentiale Bedae, Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Cod. Lat. 2223, contains the second preface; the three later copies of the Paenitentiale Bedae omit it, however. Without stating his reasoning Haggenmüller argued that the second preface had been inserted into Vienna 2223's exemplar, though he declined to explain why this was done. There is thus no compelling reason to agree with Haggenmüller on this point. Rather, the originality of the second Bedan preface should be taken for granted on the authority of the earliest witness (Vienna 2223), until a compelling counter-argument is put forward. There is an obvious explanation as to why the later witnesses of the Paenitentiale Bedae omit the second preface. Haggenmüller has already shown that in the second half of the eighth century the Paenitentiale Bedae and Paenitentiale Ecgberhti were in circulation in the same Continental centres, and often in the same manuscripts; they were even being compared against and mixed with each other. In such a scenario, it is easy to imagine scribes choosing not to include the second Bedan preface because they knew it to exist (in what to them seemed like fuller form) as the beginning of the Paenitentiale Ecgberhti, which they had already copied out (or were intending to copy out) in the same manuscript. This hypothesis is in fact supported by the present manuscript fragment (St6+Da1+Do1), which Körntgen’s reconstruction has shown to have contained, first, a full Ecgberhtine prologue, and then later the first and second Bedan prefaces, though the second has been abbreviated to the point of nearly being omitted entirely: Institutio illa sancta que fiebat in diebus patrum nostrorum et reliqua, as if the scribe understood that what was to follow was already known to the reader from earlier on. St6+Da1+Do1 thus seems to represent a transitional form, the missing link between a Paenitentiale Bedae with the second preface and a Paenitentiale Bedae without it. There is no doubt that the direction of evolution witnessed by St6+Da1+Do1 points to the gradual obsolescence, rather than the abrupt interpolation, of the second Bedan preface.
  134. ↑ Note that Finsterwalder once (Die Canones, p. 5) erroneously printed "Stuttgart HB. 107" instead of "Stuttgart HB. 109". The error was a coincidence; Finsterwalder did not know at the time that Stuttgart, Württembergische Landesbibliothek, HB. VI. 107 actually does contain excerpts of the Paenitenitale Umbrense.
  135. ↑ According to J. Autenrieth, Die Handschriften der Württembergischen Landesbibliothek Stuttgart. Zweite Reihe: Die Handschriften der ehemaligen Hofbibliothek Stuttgart, 6 vols (Wiesbaden, 1963), III, p. 101, this collection — comprising mainly excerpts from the Decretum Burchardi, as well as the collections of Ivo and Anselm — is essentially the same collection as is found in St Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. 676 (at pp. 162–70), Engelberg, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. 52 (at fols. 45r–49r), Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Cod. Lat. 2153 (at fols 42r ff.), and Admont, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. 257 (at fols 87r ff.).
  136. ↑ According to Autenrieth, Die Handschriften, III, p. 102, this collection — comprising mainly excerpts from the Decretum Burchardi, as well as the collections of Regino, Bonizo and Ivo — is essentially the same collection as is found in St Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. 676 (at pp. 170–73), Engelberg, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. 52 (at fols. 49r ff.), and Wolfenbüttel, Herzog August Bibliothek, August 9.4 (at fols 33r–35r).
  137. ↑ Cf. J.-P. Migne, ed., Patrologiæ cursus completus ... series secunda (= Latina), 217 vols (Paris, 1844–1864), CXXX, cols 3B–4C. The text concludes here with "Ex his VI principalibus synodis IIIIor eminentiores his subsequuntur iuxta illam translationem quam ex apostolica auctoritate per beatum Adrianum papam habemus."
  138. ↑ Cf. J.-P. Migne, ed., Patrologiæ cursus completus ... series secunda (= Latina), 217 vols (Paris, 1844–1864), CXXX, cols 3–6B.
  139. ↑ On the original unity of these two manuscripts, see W. Kaiser, "Zur Rekonstruktion einer vornehmlich bußrechtlichen Handschrift aus Bobbio (Hs. Vat. lat. 5751 fols l-54v + Hs. Mailand, Bibl. Ambr. G. 58 sup. fols 41r-64v)", in Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte. Kanonistische Abteilung 86 (2000), pp. 538–53.
  140. ↑ The order of contents given here is that of the reconstructed manuscript as presented by Kaiser, "Zur Rekonstruktion", pp. 544–49. For the order of texts in Vat. lat. 5751 as it currently stands, see H. Mordek, Bibliotheca capitularium regum Francorum manuscripta. Überlieferung und Traditionszusammenhang der fränkischen Herrschererlasse, MGH Hilfsmittel 15 (Munich, 1995), pp. 883–87; and for the order of texts in Milan G. 58 as it currently stands, see Haggenmüller, Die Überlieferung, p. 72.
  141. ↑ On this work see R.M. Correale, "The origin of the homily De paenitentia observanda of Pseudo-Caesarius of Arles", in Sacris erudiri 27 (1984), pp. 203–08; further variants mentioned by Mordek, Bibliotheca, p. 884, Mordek, Kirchenrecht pp. 236–37, and Körntgen, Studien, p. 122.
  142. ↑ Collated as V23 in Paenitentialia minora, eds R. Kottje et al., pp. 181–86, lines 13–120.
  143. ↑ Edited by Kottje, Die Bußbücher, pp. 280–82.
  144. ↑ On this collection see Mordek, Bibliotheca, p. 884.
  145. ↑ See Körntgen, Studien, p. 127, and Kaiser, "Zur Rekonstruktion", p. 546.
  146. ↑ Edited as V23' in Paenitentialia minora, eds Kottje et al., pp. 125–68.
  147. ↑ According to Kaiser, "Zur Rekonstruktion", pp 546–47, this copy is not fragmentary, pace Mordek, Bibliotheca, p. 886.
  148. ↑ According to Mordek, Bibliotheca, p. 410, P6 is but an apograph of P26.
  149. ↑ On the possibility that P39 should not in fact be classed among Collectio canonum Sancti Amandi witnesses, see the discussion below, under Reception
  150. ↑ Finsterwalder, ed., Die Canones, pp. 132–38).
  151. ↑ Charles-Edwards, "Penitential", pp. 144–47.
  152. ↑ For example, he takes for granted the Irish (as opposed to a possible Breton or Anglo-Irish) origin of the Hibernensis.
  153. ↑ E. Hauswald, "Pirmins Scarapsus. Einleitung und Edition" (unpubl. PhD diss., University of Konstanz, 2006), pp. xv and 73. Hauswald lists other instances where various traditions of the Paenitentiale Theodori may have been a source for Pirmin (i.e. cc. 16, 22 and 24); however, none appear to be as certain as that instance in c. 19.
  154. ↑ In connection with another of Pirmin's sources, Petrus Chrysologus's Sermo 144.9, and the Corbie redaction of the Collectio canonum vetus Gallica, which drew on the Scarapsus: Hauswald, Pirmins Scarapsus, p.p. xv–xvi.
  155. ↑ Kottje, "Paenitentiale Theodori", col. 1415.
  156. ↑ Mordek, Kirchenrecht, p. 86.
  157. ↑ Kottje, "Paenitentiale Theodori", col. 1415.
  158. ↑ On the influence the Basilian portion of this series had on several late tenth- to eleventh-century French manuscript traditions, see Mordek, Bibliotheca, pp. 63, 251, 520, 523 and 529.
  159. ↑ On the dates of the several redactions of the Collectio canonum vetus Gallica (the first at Lyons, the second at Autun, and the third at Corbie), see pp. 62–96. For the date of the exemplar of the 'South German' tradition see Mordek, Kirchenrecht, pp. 287–88 and 321.
  160. ↑ Mordek, Kirchenrecht, p. 324–25.
  161. ↑ Mordek, Bibliotheca, p. 410.
  162. ↑ See Böhringer, "Der eherechtliche Traktat", pp. 18–21. L. Kéry, Canonical collections of the early Middle Ages (ca. 400–1140): a bibliographical guide to manuscripts and literature, History of medieval canon law (Washington, D.C., 1999), pp. 170–71, refers to them as sharing the same distinct collection of Roman legal and canonical texts.
  163. ↑ This theory accords with Böhringer's division of the manuscript into three parts: "Der eherechtliche Traktat", p. 19.
  164. ↑ Petit seems to have freely emended and/or conflated the readings of these two witnesses: Woesthuis, "Two manuscripts", p. 184.
  165. ↑ Schmitz, Die Bussbücher und das kanonische Bussverfahren, p. 566, also claims to use Wz2 ("Cod. Herbipol. 32"), though this manuscript does not contain any chapters from the Half Form. He also claims to use "Cod. Sangerm. 1365", an MS also mentioned by Wasserschleben, though it is unclear to which codex this designation refers.

Bibliography

Further reading

Canones Basilienses

Canones Cottoniani

Capitula Dacheriana

Canones Gregorii

Paenitentiale Umbrense

Paenitentiale Umbrense (Half Form)

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Friday, April 08, 2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.