INFORMATION TO USERS ‘The most advanced technology has been used to photograph and Teproduce this manuscript from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others inay be from any type of computer printer. ‘The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted, Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if ‘unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. University Microtims International ‘A Bell & Howell information Company 300 North Zeeb Fad, Ann Arbor, Mi 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600Order Number 9034012 ‘The prologue to the “Decretum” and “Panormia” of Ivo of Chartres. An eleventh century treatise on ecclesiastical jurisprudence Brasington, Bruce Clark, Ph.D. University of California, Los Angeles, 1990 U-MI 300. Zeeb Rd ‘Ann Arbor, MI 48106UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Les Angeles The Prologue to the Decretum and Panormia of Ivo of Chartres. An Eleventh-century Treatise on Ecclesiastical Jurisprudence A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in History by Bruce Clark Brasington 1990‘The dissertation of Bruce Clark Brasington is approved. Dhar H. Rowe Richard W. Rouse bay Bengt Léfstedt, Co-Chair (amt Robert Benen, co-chair University of California, Los Angeles 1990 ii‘Table of Contents Introduction Chapter 1: Critical Edition Prolegonena to the Edition. Conspestus siglorum.. Stemma codicun... eee 116 Edition, Apparatus, Translatio: +232 chapter 2: soure Chapter 3: Analysis of the Prologue The gurisprudential Background..... sete cece 364 seeeeeees 470 Analysis of the Prologue.. Chapter 4: Legal wachleben Legal Nachieben I. Legal Nachieben II.. Chapter 5: Extra-Legal Nachleben Extra-Legal Machleben I... Bxtr egal Machleben 11, Conclusion. jelected Bibliography.. ppendicie: iiiAbbreviations Full bibliographical citations, when not given here, may be found in the bibliography. AHP AHR AKKR Barker, History Ratara._and BEC Blienetzrieder, Schriften BMCL Catalogue générale Catalogue générale manuscrits latins catalogus codicum regiae ech. cu Cottineau, Répertoire Axrshivum Historiae Pontificiae American Historical Review Archiv flr katholisches Kirchenrecht Lynn K. Barker, History, Reform and Law_in the Work of Ivo of Chartres (Dissertation: North Carolina 1988) Bibliotheque de 1'Ecole des Chartes Franz Bliemetzrieder, "Zu den zu_den Schriften Ivos von Chartres (+1116). Ein literargeschichtlicher Beitrag," SB Vienna 182 (1917) Bulletin of Medieval Canon Law. New Series Catalogue générale des _biblictheques bubliques de France. Départements Catalogue générale des manuscrits (Paris 1940-) regiae 3 vols. (Paris 1744) Corpus Christianorun. Series Latina Sorpus Christianorum. Continuatio Mediaevalis. L.H. Cottineau, Répertoire topo- bibliographique des_abbayes et prieurés 2 vols. (Macon 1935-39) Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorun ivMittelalters poe Pictionnaize de droit canonique ERR English Historical Review Fournier, "Les Paul Fournier, "Les collections collections" attribuées a Yves de BEC 57 (1896) 645-98; 58 (1897) 26-77, 293-326, 410-44, 624~ 76, rp. in gahonigue 1.451-678. Fournier, en occident depuis les fausses décrétales jusqu'au Décret_ de Gratien 2 vols. (Paris 1931-1932, rp. Aalen 1972) Halm, Catalogus August Halm, ed. Sodicum Monacensis (Munich 1868-) HZ Historische Zeitschrift aK Regesta Pontificum Romanorum (Jaffé- Kaltenbrunner) JE Regesta Pontificum Romanorum (Jatfé- Ewald) ots The Journal of Theological studies Kretzschnar, Robert Kretzschmar, Alger von Alger Alger _von 7 Luttich dustitia." Ein kanonistischer Konkordanzversuch aus der Zeit des Investiturstreits. Untersuchungen _ und Edition (Quelien und Forschungen zum Recht im Mittelalter 2: Sigmaringen 1985) Kuttner, Stephan Kuttner, Repertorium der Repertorium 5 (Studi et Testi 71: Sorpus dlossarum Vatican City 1937) Leclercq, "La Jean Leclercq, "La collection des Collection" lettres d'Yves de Chartres," RB 56 (1946) 108-25Mansi MBKO Mélanges MGH LaL MH Schriften. MGH ss qc MrIdc MGB NA PL , ed. Giovanni, Domenico Mansi, 60 vols. (Paris 1901-1927) Mittelalterliche Bibliothekskataloge Deutschlands und der Schweiz yibtelalteriiche Biplicthekskatalose Mélanges de droit canonique, ed. ‘Theo Kblzer 2 vols. (Aalen 1983) Neil Ker, Great Britain (London 1941) Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft fir diltere deutsche Geschichtskunde iatina, ed. J.P. Migne, 221 vols. (Paris 1844-1864) Proceedings of the Fourth International Conaress of | Ganon Law, ed. Stephan Kuttner (MIC. Ser. C. Subsidia 5: Vatican city 1976) Proceedings of the Sixth International Congress of Medieval Ganon Law, ed. Stephan Kuttner and Kenneth Pennington (MIC. Ser. C. Subsidia 7: Vatican City 1985. viSB Berlin SB Munich SB Vienna Sprandel, Ivo von Chartres Stelzer, Gelebrtes Recht St.Greg. Revue _bénédictine Twelfth Century, ed. Robert L. Benson and Giles Constable (Harvard 1982) Rolf Sprandel, Ivo von Chartres und Kixchengesc”(chte (Pariser Historische studien 1: Stuttgart 1962) Winfried Stelzer, Gelehrtes Recht in 14. dahxhundert (mi6G Ergiinzungsband 26: Vienna 1982) Studi Gresoriani‘Tabulae manu seriptorun (Vienna 1864-) ‘TRHS Transactions of the Roval Historical Society Vatican Catalogue of Vatican Legal Gataloque Manusoripts 2RG KA Zeitschrift der Saviony-stiftung fir viiiACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many have helped me over the last six years. The debt is great. I wish te thank my professors at UCLA for their valuable guidance. My advisor, Prof. or Benson, first suggested the Prologue to me as a worthwhile topic for re arch. His encouragement was unfailing. My co- chairman, Professor Léfstedt, likewise provided constant support as I struggled with the complexities of the textual tradition. I am also grateful to my third reader, Professor Rouse, for his careful reading and constructive criticism. Finally, I must add here ny special thanks to Professor Stephan Kuttner, who encouraged the project from the very start. Without the generous support of the Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst, the bulk of my research could not have been undertaken. During my two years in Munich, I enjoyed the hospitality of the Monumenta Germaniae Historica and the support of its president, Professor Dr. Dr. h.c. Horst Fuhrmann. I also owe a particular debt of thanks to Professor Dr. Peter Landau for his hospitality and help during my many visits to Regensburg. Dr. Claudia Martl's interest and help have saved me more than once from error and omission. Finally, I wish to thank the library staff of the MGH, its former head, Fraulein Dr. Lietzmann and Frau KristaBecker. The manuscripts of the Prologue are scattered throughout Europe. I owe a great debt to the numerous libraries that generously allowed me to visit or graciously provided me with photostats or microfilms. For two years the Handschriftenabteilung of the Bayerische Staatsbiblicthek was a second home to me, and I wish to thank Dr. Dachs and Frau Renner for their help and hoepitality. I also wish to thank the following libraries and institutions for their assistance: Berlin (Zast), Deutsche staatsbibliothek; Berlin (West), Staatsbiblicthek PreuBischer Kulturbesitz; Cambridge, Corpus Christi College and The University Library; Darmstadt, He: sche Landes-und Hochschulbiblicthek; Ligge, University Library; London, The British Library; Paris, Bibliothéque Mazarin and the Bibliotheque Nationale; Salzburg, Erzabtei st Peter; stuttgart, Wirttemburgische Landsbibliothek; Vienna, Ssterreichische Nationalbibliothek. I also wish to thank several re: eh institutes for their special assistance. The Institute of Medieval canon Law at Berkeley has become a welcome haven for this weary graduate student over the last six years. Stephanie Jefferis-ribbetts and Katherine Christiansen helped me from the outset of my work on the Prologue. The Hill Monastic Manuscript Library not only provided me with numerous films and photostats from its rich holdings butalso provided warm hospitality during a visit in 1987. Finally, the staff of the IRHT in Paris made a brief, hectic visit in 1987 both productive and enjoyable. My friends and colleagues have helped me at various times in my work. I owe a debt of thanks to Peter Diehl, Neil Hathaway, Joseph Huffman, Clay Stalls for taking time out from their own research both in America and Europe to answer questions and plough through manuscripts. Eric Rambo also provided unflagging, cheerful encouragement. The greatest debt of thanks must go, however, to my family, who have patiently supported me during the long years of graduate study. Both my mother and father and mother and father-in law encouraged me, even when it seemed as if Ivo's Prologue would never find an end. To my wife, Darlene, I offer my deepest thanks, thanks beyond any words I myself could write. In The Prophet, Kahil Gibran remarks: "You give but little when you give of your possessions. It is when you give of yourself at you truly give." In thanks for her greater gift of love, I dedicate this dissertation to her. xiVITA March 3, 1957 Born, Alexandria, Virgina 1979 B.A., History Oklahoma state University Stillwater, Oklahoma 1982 M.A., History Southern Methodist University Dallas, Texas 1983-1985 Teaching Assistant University of California, Los Angeles Los Angeles, California 1985 Outstanding Teaching Assistant Award University of California, Los Angeles Los Angeles, California 1985-1987 Research at Monumenta Germaniae Historica Munich, West Germany, under grant from Deutsche Akademischer Austauschdienst (DAAD) 1989-1990 Instructor, Social Sciences 88 Program University of California, Los Angeles Los Angeles, California PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS Brasington, Bruce (July 1988). The Prologue of Ivo of Shartres.—h Fresh neanination fron-the Manuscript 26 1988). Brasington, Bruce C. (May 1990) Congrega seniores canon Law. Paper Presented at the 25th International Congress of Medieval Studies, Kalamazoo, Michigan. (La Jolla, CA. August 21- xiiABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION The Prologue to the Decretum and Panormia of Ivo of Chartres. an Eleventh-century Treatise on Ecclesiastical Jurisprudence by Bruce Clark Brasington Doctor of Philosophy in History University of California, Los Angeles, 1990 Professor Robert L. Benson, Co-Chair Professor Bengt Lifstedt, Co-Chair ‘This dissertation explores a treatise on jurisprudence written by Bishop Ivo of Chartres around 1090. Ivo was a leading figure in Church reform and the outstanding legal mind of his day. His treatise, commonly known as his Prologue, is the first systematic exposition of ecclesiastical jurisprudence in the history of the Church. It made a fundamental contribution to the development of scholasticisn. Chapter one presents the critical edition of Prologue, the first in its history. Here evidence be offered demonstrating that the text originated iki the willtreatise before its transformation into a prologue for Ivo's legal collections. A translation then follows. Chapter two analyzes the material and formal sources of the treatise. Chapters three and four then consider the message of the Prologue, examining, in turn, the jurisprudential traditions that educated Ivo and the distinctive jurisprudence of the text based on the development of dispensation in light of christian love. special attention is paid to Ivo's use of previous authors, such as St Augustine, when compared to their utilization by contemporary theorists during the Investiture Contest. Chapter five treats the influence of the Prologue on twelfth-century legal thought. It considers the transmission of the text’ with interesting derivative versions of Ivo's collections, its reception by Gratian into his Decretum, and its extensive use by the French school of decretists. Chapter six, also in two parts, analyzes the influence of the Prologue on non-legal writers. The first section considers its impact on various historical writers. The second section analyzes the extensive glosses to the text. This study provides a detailed text-history of Ivo's treatise on legal theory. It aims to show the pastoral orientation guiding Ivo's jurisprudence, a vision of canon law based on a flexible understanding of tradition grounded in Christian love. xivIntroduction A picture of feudal society, especially in its first age, would inevitably give but an inaccurate idea of the reality if it were concerned exclusively with legal institutions and allowed one to forget that men in those times lived in constant and painful insecurity.? ‘The great French nedievalist Marc Bloch has vividly described the world of Bishop Ivo of Chartres (ca. 1040- 1115). He also challenges this present study, an attempt to capture the image of the violent, dynamic world of the late eleventh century as reflected by a single text: a jurisprudential treatise composed by Ivo at the outset of his episcopate (1090-1115), a work commonly called his Prologue. In tracing the great themes of Ivo's treatise, we must never forget Bloch's portrait of feudal society. It is the Prologue's essential context. For the world of 1100 was a canvas painted in harsh contrasts, colored by the daily menace of violent men,” and the eternal ideals of christian peace.’ As we will discover, Ivo's exposition of Christian love in law, the message of his Prologue, provided more than theory; it responded to this struggle between fear and hope, violence and peace. My task is to write a text-history of Ivo's Prologue. I do not undertake it lightly. A chasm separates us from Ivo, and the intervening centuries challenge any attemptto pry open a window into the late eleventh century. Despite the wealth of his surviving letters, sermons, and canonical collections, Ivo remains a difficult, enigmatic figure. Contemporary witnesses do not paint a vivid portrait of the man. The Chartres nartyrology praises the bishop in lavish but familiar terms.* Ivo was a "man of great religion" (yuir magnae religionis), a devoted pastor and diligent bishop, adept in politics and deep in learning. Other records note his efforts at reform for, like many of his contemporaries, Ivo reformed his diocese literally as well as figuratively, transforming the wooden episcopal domus into a house of stone and his clergy into Augustinian canons.* Amid the praise, however, we gain no real measure of the man, no insight that might easily separate personality from performance. In an age notable for striking, even occasionally almost demonic figures, Ivo appears conventional, almost bland.’ One should not, however, quickly dismiss a portrait of the conventional in an age of conflict. In its own way, the solid impression of Ivo's career as bishop stands out markedly when compared to the extremes of his contemporaries on both sides of the struggle for church reform. An illustration of this appears in the almost contemporary portrait of Ivo preserved in a Copenhagen manuscript of his letters dating from the 1130s.° At first glance we are unimpressed, for we see only apicture of a bishop enthroned on his cathedra, a traditional portrait seemingly devoid of any personality.* Nevertheless, it is the very stability and solemnity of the bishop in his maiestas, enthroned with staff and book in hand, that captures Ivo. The remainder of this study will provide a gloss to this image, for Ivo cannot be understood apart from his office, his Prologue apart from the daily concerns of the bishop. In our reading of the Prologue we must always seek the pastoral concern animating the great themes of jurisprudence and ecclesiology. Modern scholars have rightly praised Ivo's achievements. The bishop was a great reformer, responsible not only for carrying the initiatives of his mentor Urban II north of the Alps,” but also for the establishment of regular life among his clergy." Likewise, Ivo was a scholar, undoubtedly the leading canonist of his day. He turned his knowledge of the canons to the resolution of the Investiture Contest, and made an important contribution to the distinction between regalia and spiritualia that would eventually lead to the compromise at Worms in 1122.” Finally, Ivo's scholarship made a crucial contribution to the emergence of scholasticism, and this study will trace the Prologue's role in the transformation of tradition into dialectical, systematic disciplines of law and theology.These achievements cloud, however, our understanding of the Prologue. Scholars have tended to ignore or undervalue the mundane context of the treatise, often treating it as an intellectual monument somehow detached from the day-to-day affairs of the bishop of Chartres. This study will attempt to avoid this error. For however loyal to the papacy, ardent a reformer, and keen a scholar of law and theology, Ivo retained a unique, practical understanding of law and the church, an understanding shaped by his education and career as a northern French cleric. In Ivo we encounter a voice of the great reform movement often unheard amid the shrill debates between Empire and Papacy: the counsel of the provincial reformer attempting to harmonize the ideals of the reform movement with the specific needs of his church, Without the cooperation of bishops like Ivo, the ultimate success of the reform outside of the Investiture Contest and, indirectly, the triumph of the papai position, would not have been possible.” The Prologue bears witnesses to this effort. ‘Three main objectives direct this text-history of the Prologue. From the foundation of a critical edition I shall examine the message of the text by providing a detailed comparison of Ivo's legal, theological, and ecclesiological arguments with those of his contemporaries. The edition will also permit the analysis of the treatise's sources, thus enabling aglimpse into his intellectual workshop in the early years of his episcopate. Finally, I shall trace the extensive influence of the Prologue on later audiences, one that embraced the totality of the cultural revival in the twelfth-century Renaissance. The focus of this text-history will be caritas, the distinctive expression of Christian love at the core of the Prologue. Caritas crystallizes Ivo’s conception of law and ecclesiology; it is the axis around which all arguments turn. Guided by Christian love, the canons become a flexible tool that can answer every dilemma with the proper remedy found in the balance of moderation and severity. This effort to harmonize tradition in love so that it might meet the needs of the Church, distinguishes the Prologue from the competing texts in the literature of the Investiture Contest. The theme of caritas also won new audiences for the text in the twelfth century, long after the libelli of the reform era had ceased to be read. The plan of the following study can be briefly summarized. First comes an analysis of the Prologue's extensive manuscript tradition. A critical edition with accompanying translation will then follow. The critical edition provides the foundation for the next chapter, an analysis of the Prologue's distinctive message. Next the sources of the Prologue will be considered, not only the individual texts used by Ivo but also their formaltransmission. Finally, two chapters will trace the Prologue's influence on twelfth-century thought. Here I shall first examine the text's impact on canon law, which extended from the dominance of the Panormia in the first decades of the century to include the French school of decretists in the 1170s. Master Gratian's own use of the Prologue as a key text in his presentation of the doctrine on dispensation forms the centerpiece of this analysis. The next chapter will then consider the Prologue's influence on extra-legal texts, ranging from the early eleventh-century tracts of the Anglo-Norman Anonymous to the historical writings of Ralph Diceto, a commentator on the Becket controversy. An examination of glossed Prologues, an unexpectedly rich source of information on the diversity of Ivo's audience, will conclude the work.1. Mare Bloch, Feudal Society, 2 vols., trans. L.A. Manyon (Chicago 1961) 2.410. 2. See, among many similar examples, a letter of Ivo's written sometime after 1114 to Cono, Cardinal Bishop of Palestrina, and papal legate to France. In his letter (PL 162.277¢-278B), Ivo responds to the legate's report of the excommunication of those involved in the seizure of the county of Nivers. Ivo has challenged Count Theobald with the fullness of canonical rigor in the hope that he might give up the county and return the land to peace. Despite the count's obstinance, further exacerbated by royal support, Ivo urges the legate to press on for peace: "communicate itaque consilio cum episcopis et judicibus pacis, ita hanc controversiam sedare studete, ut qui ex adverso stat non habeat quod reprehendat et pax Ecclesiarum et quies pauperum in sua stabilitate permaneant." On Cono's legation, see Theodor Schieffer, Die pupstlichen Legaten in Frankreich vom Vertrage von Meersen (870) bis zum Schisma von 1130 (Historische Studien 263: Berlin 1935, rp. Vaduz 1965) 198-202. on Ivo's turbulent relations with kings and counts, see especially Rolf Sprandel, Ivo von Chartres, Seine Stelluna in_der Kirchengeschichte (Pariser Historische Studien 1: stuttgart 1962) 86-115. (Despite the partial edition of Ivo's letters made by Jean Leclercq (on which morebelow), I have decided for the sake of consistency to cite Ivo's letters in this study from the edition in PL 162.) 3. As vividly portrayed by Bloch, n. 1 above, 412-20. A detailed study of the Peace and Truce of God movenents, including their presence in the Chartres diocesis, is provided by Hartmut Hoffmann, Gottesfriede und Treuga Dei (MGH Schriften 20: Stuttgart 1964). For more on the movements, in particular their conceptions of the oath as it compares to Ivo's own formulation of legal status before and after a vow, see below in chapter analyzing the text. 4 For a good overview of Ivo's life and achievements, with attention to pertinent bibliography, see the recent dissertation by Lynn K. Barker, History, Reform, and Law inthe Work of Ivo of Chartres (Dissertati: of North Carolina 1988) 16-44. At least in its University bibliography, this work brings up to date the earlier biography by Sprandel (note 2 above). For a critique of Barker’ use of historical analysis of the Prologue argumentation, see below in the chapter analyzing the text. 5. The entry is printed in the Cartulaire de Notre-Dame de Chartres, ed. E. de Lépinois and L. Merlet, 3 vols. (Chartres 1862-65) 3.225 and reprinted in PL 162.25C-26A.6. PL 162.268. : We encounter this conventionality in several nineteenth-century dissertations devoted to Ivo, for example the work by Francis Ritzke, De Ivone episcopo sarnotensis (Dissertation: Breslau 1863) and Albert Sieber, Bischof Ivo von Chartres und seine Stellung zu den kirchenpolitischen Fragen seiner Zeit (Dissertation: Kénigsberg 1885). Both works are essentially derived from earlier histories, portraits of Ivo's activity as a model bishop reflected by his letters. Neither author discusses the Prologue. 8. Kopenhagen, GL. Kongl. Saml. 1357 fol. s4v. The manuscript is described in M. Mackeprang et al., Greek and_Latin Illuminated Manuscripts x-XxII Centuries in Panish_Collections (Kopenhagen 1921) 48, with the miniature found on plate LXII. The manuscript dates to the first half of the twelfth century and a possession note on fol. iv indicates that it at one time belonged to the Benedictine convent of Cismar in Holstein. Ivo's letters occupy virtually the entire manuscript, 83 of 84 folios. 9. Contrast this image with the much more animated portrait of Ivo's great predecessor Fulbert, preserved in an eleventh-century miniature by Andrew de Mici in the municipal library of Chartres. Fulbert stands under thenave of his cathedral in the act of blessing his flock, who have crowded around him to receive his benediction. The image is printed in color in Jan van der Meulen and Sirgen Hohmeyer, Chartres, Biographie der Kathedral. (Cologne 1984) pl. xxii. 10. Ivo owed his elevation to Urban, whose letter of commendation to the clergy and people of Chartres generally precedes the more complete collections of Ivo's letters and is found at the head of the edition by Juretus, reprinted by Migne at PL 162.13AC. On Ivo's activity as reformer under Urban's guidance, see especially Alfons Becker, Papst Urban IZ (1088-1099) 2 vols. (MGH Schriften 19.1-2: Stuttgart 1964-1988) 1.187- 226. For Ivo's influence on Urban's thought, see below in the chapter on legal Nachleben. 21, On which see in general L. Fischer, "Ivo von Chartres, der Erneuerer der Vita canonica in Frankreich," Eestaabe Alois Knépfler, ed. H. Gietl and G. Pfeilsschrifter (Freiburg 1917) 67-88. For examples of Ivo's direct reform of a foundation, consult charles Dereine, "Les coutumiers de Beauvais et de Springersbach," RHE 43 (1948) 411-42 and L. Milis, "Le coutumier de Saint- Quentin de Beauvais," Sacris Erudiri 21 (1972-73) 435-81, the latter the foundation where Ivo served as provost during the decade immediately preceding his election to 10Chartres in 1090. Further observations are provided by Lynn K. Barker, "Epistola 63 and the Canonical Reform Movement: Keys to Understanding the Typological Exegesis of Ivo of Chartres," Proceedings of the PMR Conference 9 (1984) 51-8, who draws attention to Ivo's letter of about 2099, to a certain Leudo, probably a canon of St. Quentin of Beauvais. The letter (PL 162.77D-81C) demonstrates through a series of typological arguments the superiority of the regular clergy over monks. 12. On which see Hartmut Hoffmann, “Ivo von Chartres und die Lésung des Investiturstreits," DA 15 (1959) 393-440. 13. See especially the comments by Richard W. Southern, The Making of the Middle Ages, (New Haven 1973) 150-51. 1Prolegomena Introduction The Prologue of Ivo of Chartres was a successful text. This success is reflected by the mumber of surviving manuscripts and the diversity of its transmission. The task of editing this popular, flexible document tests the limits of traditional stemmatic analysis. The temptation to give up the search for an authentic text in the mass of variant readings is very real.’ Nevertheless, this edition has elected to follow the traditional inductive methods of textual criticism, for only these can provide the necessary tools to examine the Prologue in all its diversity.* The basic assumption of this edition is that the Prologue must be studied as a text in its own right, notwithstanding its general transmission as an introduction to the Decretum and Panormia. While the debate over the text's place within the tradition of the collections has aided the initial survey of the manuscript tradition, it did not materially contribute te the final criteria that shaped the critical edition. Collation has instead suggested that the text may antedate both collections. This evidence will be presented shortly. This edition of the Prologue has required a broad 12study of the extant manuscripts. The results of examination and collation--presented in the stemma codicum--reflect the richness of its transmission as Prologue and treatise.’ In short, this edition, while recognizing the limits imposed by the size of the manuscript tradition, still attempts to present an authentic version of Ivo's treatis ‘The variants also must not be ignored, for it is as much in the apparatus, with of variants, with its geographicai and occasionally interpretative diversity, ad“in the message of the text itself, that the later reception and wide influence of the Prologue can best be appreciated. ‘The printed Panormia Prologue We must first consider the lengthy printed history of the text. The Prologue was first printed in Sebastian Brant's editio princeps of the Panormia at Basel in 1499. It stands as a landmark in the study of medieval canon law, the first edition of a pre-Gratian canonical collection. In his preface to the edition, Brant praises his work as a useful contribution to contemporary scholarship, not merely a curiosity from the past.‘ He gives, however, no specific information about the manuscript tradition behind the edition. We learn only that the Panormia was "known only to a few contemporaries," and that apparently only one manuscript 13was used in the edition.* The next edition of the Panormia was produced at Louvain in 1557 by Melchior Vosmedian. Vosmedian provides more information about the background to his edition. According to his introductory letter to Phillip II of Spain, he first came across the collection while attending the Council of Trent. In the accompanying letter that serves as an introduction to the edition, Vosmedian portrays his work as a act of Christian piety, an effort to bring a forgotten text to the attention of his contemporaries. Through the addition of scholarly notes and indicies, he has made the Panormia once again a useful weapon in the defense of the Catholic faith.® The early printed history of the Panormia has received surprisingly little scholarly attention. only recently, in 1982, did Peter Landau present an initial critical analysis of the editions, basing his study on a collation of the Brant and Vosmedian editions with seven Munich manuscripts. Landau focused his study on the rubrics and inscriptions in the collection.’ Th results should be briefly reviewed, as they provide the necessary foundation for appraisal of the Prologue as edited with the Panormia. Previous scholars had rarely gone beyond a general criticism of the inadequacies of the Migne edition. Landau's ri arch gave substance to this criticism for the first time by attempting to identify and untangle 14the descent of the text from the first editions down to the Patrologia latina. The rubrics of the collection give important clues to the evolution and transformation of the printed Panormia and, in turn, reveal the corruption of the final product in Migne. Collation demonstrates that the rubrics in Brant's edition are partly authentic, partly derived from the corresponding texts in Gratian. The rubrics in Vosmedian's edition come, in turn, either from Brant or from the editor himself. In the latter case, the: are always rubrics created for chapters not subsequently received by Gratian.® The Brant edition is the most authentic printed version. The version in Migne is, in comparison, a hybrid text based partly on the Vosmedian edition and partly on new editorial creations. In Landau's judgement, the Migne edition, the version exclusively used in modern scholarship, must stand as a failed attempt to created a new edition.® only the Brant edition has any foundation in the manuscript tradition." Unlike Vosmedian, Brant did not create new rubrics for chapters not found in Gratian. He retained the authentic and unique rubrics found in hie manuscript of the Panormia.” Analysis of the Prologue rubrics in the Brant edition generally supports Landau's conclusions. The five major rubricated divisions of the text are found in 15a significant number of manuscripts: de intentione diuine pagine; de ammonicione; de indulgenica; de preceptionibus et prohibitionibus; de diepensacione.” Like the text of the Panormia itself, the remaining rubrics in Brant's edition of the Prologue come from the corresponding texts in Gratian. There are also two instances where rubrics generally found in the manuscripts are not given by Brant.” The inscriptions to the Brant Prologue have only a partial foundation in the manuscript tradition. Apart from the citations from Augustine, the manuscripts rarely give inscriptions.“ The letter from Cyril of Alexandria to Ianuarius of Antioch poses a special problem. While Brant takes his inscription from the text's transmission by Gratian (C 1 q.7 ¢.7), the few manuscripts that give an inscription designate the text as a letter to Gennadius of Antioch. vosmedian clearly took the majority of the Prologue's rubrics and inscriptions from the Brandt edition. He mentions Brant's work briefly in his dedicatory letter to Phillip II, as well as a manuscript he claims to have discovered after a diligent search of the public and private libraries of London.’ In his general letter to the reader, Vosmedian further states that he restored a number of rubrics to the collection.’* His creative activity is, however, limited in the Prologue. The rubric given at the beginning of 16the section on episcopal translation, “episcopi alias ecclesias mutati," appears neither in Brant nor in the manuscripts, though many of the latter do transmit similar rubrics. Once again the rubrics common to the manuscript tradition are found in Vosmedian. The inscriptions are also taken from Brant. In short, the Prologue in the Vosmedian edition follows the Brandt edition, thus agreeing with Landau‘s appraisal of the collection itself. Neither Brandt nor Vosmedian give clear information about the manuscripts behind their editions. There is no record of a Panormia manuscript available to Brant in Basel; likewise there is no clear evidence of the Panormia that Vosmedian might have seen in London. Despite these difficulties, a comparison of the printed editions with the Prologue tradition in the manuscripts does give some clues about what types of manuscripts Brant and Vosmedian may have had at hand. Brant's manuscript is elusive. In the introductory letter to the edition, Brant emphasizes the care taken to provide a faithful text without corruption.” Apart from the allusion to the single book apparently used for ‘the edition, we are given only the place and date of publication.” Collation of the Prologue in the Brant edition with the manuscripts has revealed, however, some important, if not conclusive, agreements with several extant a7manuscripts. As will be subsequently shown, these readings appear most frequently in the broad cluster of glossed Prologues transmitted with the Panormia, manuscripts generally of German or Austrian origins. This information parallels the interesting similarities between the appendix of additional chapters in the Brant edition, a feature of all subsequent Panormia editions, and an appendix of chapters at the conclusion of a Salzburg manuscript, Archabtei st. Peter, stiftsbibliothek a viii 15. This manuscript will be shortly examined in some detail. While these agreenents can only suggest Brant's potential manuscript models for his edition, they nevertheless do point to a general concurrence between the edition and these manuscripts. In several instances, citations within the text have been also completed, citations that are only fragmentary in the more primitive text. while these might indicate a possibly later version of the Prologue at work, it is more likely that Brant himself intervened in the text by completing the quotations.’* The mnuscript foundation of the Vosmedian edition is equally obscure. Though he mentions his reliance on a London manuscript in addition to the Brant edition--the latter not cited by name-xit is difficult to determine which Panormia manuscripts, if any, were present in London in the mid-sixteenth century. The only Ivonian collection definitely in London at that date was the 18Decretum acquired by John Leland from Lincoln cathedral library following the dissolu’ion of the northern religious houses and dispersion of ecclesiastical libraries in the 1540s. This manuscript (now London, BL Royal 11 D 7) appears already in the Westminster inventory of 1542.” It provides, however, an improbable model for an edition of the Panormia, and collation of its Prologue has also revealed no sign of its presence in Vosmedian's text. One piece of evidence suggesting the type of manuscript behind the Vosmedian edition occurs at the conclusion of the Prologue. Here Vosmedian completes a line which does not appear in the Brant edition, a line likely omitted through homeoteleuton either in the original manuscript model or during typsetting. The phrase "que iudicium sanguinis contineant non ad hoc inserte sunt" (572-573) appears in the margin of Vosmedian's edition. This restores the sense of the argument at this point, where Ivo cautions his audience not to literally apply the precedents of secular, capital punishment to ecclesiastical cases, but instead to exploit them in order to explain or assert the canons (assertionem canonicorum). Unfortunately, this omission is limited to one manuscript in the tradition--vienna ONB 2230--an independent transmission of the Prologu This marginal addition can only suggest that Vosmedian did in fact employ a manuscript along with the Brant 19edition. ‘The Printed Decretum Prologue Johannnes Molineaus, newly appointed special prof jor of canon law at Louvain, edited the first edition of the Decretum. The edition was published in 1561 by Bartholemew Gravius, printer for the university. Molinaeus w: apparently the first to recognize the Pecretum as an authentic work of Ivo's.” His edition was so influential that it helped to reverse scholarly judgement of the collections. Thereafter the Decretum became the authentic text, with the Panormia relegated to the position of an inferior abbreviation.” Unlike Brant and Vosmedian, Molinaeus provides a fair amount of information about the manuscripts behind his edition. The picture is complicated, however, by the presence of multiple contemporary versions of his introduction to the edition. Scholars have traditionally labled the introduction ascribed to Molinaeus in the Migne edition a forgery created by the Decretum's second editor, Jean Fronteau.* This letter is, however, not a forgery, but a contemporary--though probably slightly later--introduction to the edition. Though the introductory letters printed in the edition and in Migne are both addressed to Bernard Fresneda, the confessor to Phillip II, their similarity 20coal there. The version found in Migne appears to be the more common form of the two, and contains sone features which may suggest a later date of composition.” This version has little contact with the edition that follows, presenting instead a lengthy, rambling discourse on the dangers of heresy. There is no sign of any personal contact between Molineaus and Fresneda in this dedication. In contrast, the version generally considered authentic gives occasional clues as to the manuscripts used in the edition, as well as clear indications of the Fresneda's patronage of Molinaeus. Though the letter still warns of heresy, Molinaeus also mentions two manuscripts, one from Cologne, the other apparently fron the royal library of Phillip IT. Fresneda had made the latter available to the editor.” ‘The motives behind the second preface remain unclear. Though the title page gives 1561 as the date of publication, it also hints at a later date. Here Ivo is called "beatus," a title suggesting perhaps a date after his beatification by Pius V in December 1570. If this second preface were composed in the 1570s, the circumstances of Molinaeus' last years might explain the necessity for a second, altered preface to the edition. Molinaeus was a controversial figure throughout his tenure at Louvain and, in the course of tine, antagonized not only his colleagues, but also local 22royal and ecclesiastical officials. In the early 1570s he carried his complaints to Rome, only to be ignored at the curia. after publically criticizing the provincial bishops, Molinaeus fell into complete disgrace and spent the remainder of his life in a cloister in Louvain. He died there insane in 1575.” Perhaps the second, more impersonal preface reflects this fall from favor.” Like Brant, Molinaeus considered his edition as something more than legal antiquarianism. His preface depicts the Decretum as a newly-recovered weapon for the defense of the Catholic faith. The Decretum was also a treasury of the faith (thesaurum totium ecclesiastica @isciplinae). Now Ivo's true text could once more serve the church.” at one point, Molinaeus even quotes the Prologue in order to emphasize the importance of Ivo's contribution to jurisprudence and the harmonization of tradition.” Despite the small number of extant Decretum manuscripts--a clear indication of its limited transmission--the manuscript sources of the edition remain uncertain. In his recent analysis of the collection's printed and manuscript traditions, Peter Landau has observed that none of the surviving manuscripts decisively agree with the Molinaeus edition, nor do they give clues concerning the Cologne or Regius manuscripts. To give one example, the chapter sequence in the edition for book six differs from the 22manuscript: 1 At Book 6.223 Molinaeus also provides a marginal comment, noting that here he has elected to remain with the Cologne text: "In codice regio variat erdo, sed nos a coloniensi non recessimus."* Despite this comment and other marginal notes citing this manuscript, it remains unidentified.” The surviving manuscripts likewis give little indication about the form of the Regius manuscript. The original preface to the edition describes a manuscript that lacks the capitulatio (argumenta) and gives a lengthy marginal gloss at 1.268. None of the extant manuscripts, either of the complete Decretum or its abridged forms, have these characteristics.” Landau focuses his attention on the form of the editions, attaching special importance to chapter Sequences and additional chapters. He concludes that the Cologne manuscript must stand closest to the two surviving English manuscripts: Cambridge Corpus Christi 19 and London, BL Royal 11 D 7. These manuscripts also contain the greatest number of additional chapters found in the Molinaeus edition.” It remains to be seen whether examination of the Prologue can provide additional clues about the manuscripts behind the Molinaeus edition. If, as Landau contends, the Regius codex provided occasional marginal readings in the edition, manuscripts with these readings should point the way to the original model. In his 23analysis of the collection, Landau found only one variant out of eight in a manuscript.” He did not consider the Prologue. Molinaeus gives five marginal variants in his edition of the Prologue. Unfortunately, the frequency of correspondence with the manuscripts is no better here than in the collection. only one reading, “instituendos" for “instruendos", is supported by the manuscripts. The remaining readings either do not appear in the surviving manuscripts or are relatively common in Panormia Prologues.’” As for the collation of the Prologue text in Molinaeus with the manuscripts, it has revealed no decisive agreement.” Thus, the text and marginal readings of the edition offer no clear evidence of the manuscript background. The rubrics of the Prologue, however, do furnish a few clues about the manuscripts. If they do not clearly show the definitive origins of the models, they at least suggest their structure. The rubrics are divided into four consecutive groups in the Decretum Prologue: rubrics found in both vd (Vat. lat. 1357) and vt (vat. Pal. lat. 288); rubrics transmitted only by vd; rubrics found only in vt; and rubrics unique to the edition. It should also be noted that all the Prologue rubrics in the manuscripts are in hands contemporary with the text hand. The rubrics are always found in the text of vt; in va they are always given marginally. 24‘The first pair of rubrics gives major thenatic divisions at the beginning of the Prologue. These are also given in many of the manuscripts of the Panormia Prologue, as well as in the printed editions (line numbers are from the critical edition): Molinaeus va ve 75 admonitio admonitio de induigencia 91 indulgencia indulgencia nota de Aindulgencia Next come the rubrics unique to vt among the Decretun manuscripts: Molinaeus ve 129 prohibitio mobilis mobilibus 137 in immobilibus in inmobilibus 145 in mobilibus in mobilibus 181 exemplum dispensationis de exenplum euangelio dispensationis de euangelio 188 de actibus apostolorun de actibus apostolorum 223 de institutione patrum de institutione patrun 366 in his personis decretun in his personis temperatun decretum temperatun 390 qui episcopi translati quod episcopi translati 25424 qui restituti qui restituti Several of these rubrics are unique to the entire textual tradition: “exemplum dispensationis de evangelio"; "de actibus apostolorum"; "in his personis decretum temperatum." Finally, two rubrics at the end of the Prologue are apparently unique to the edition and, perhaps, its manuscript models: synodus synodum solvit"; "de clericis ut qui se continere non possunt stipendia foris accipiant." In both cases, the rubric merely repeats the text at that point. The first is taken from the lengthy excerpt from the decretal of John VIII, with the second from the citation of the Libellus responsionum of Gregory the Great. The Prologue's rubrics suggest the form of Molinaeus' models. If the Regius manuscript provided the marginal readings, then it may have also given the rubrics. Alternatively, the Cologne manuscript, as the foundation of the text, may have contained them already. In any case, the rubrics point to a common group of manuscripts most closely related to vd and vt. This analysis suggests as well that Vt may be somewhat closer to Va than supposed by Landau.”* of the two, the text of Vt's Prologue deviates the most from the common tradition, thus confirming Landau's analysis of the 26manuscript based upon chapter sequences and additional © chapters.“ The sequence of the Prologue rubrics suggests either the possibility of a model common to vd and Vt, or, perhaps, a related manuscript that provided these rubrics to Molinaeus. Here the English manuscripts can be immediately exclude¢. for they give no rubrics in their Prologues. The same is true for the Victorinus Decretum, Pd, (Paris, BN lat. 14315), the companion manuscript to vt in Landau's "French group." Moreover, the Palatinus manuscript presents a chapter sequence which follows the edition, thus complicating the picture further.’? Thus, while no clear conclusions can be drawn from analysis of the Prologue's manuscript rubrics in light of the edition, it nevertheless can be argued that the lost Regius manuscript could be related to Vd and vt. The lack of manuscripts hinders further analysis of this potential connection. Molinaeus presents a relatively uncorrupt edition. Though rubrics in the collection are occasionally manipulated, added, or omitted--as in the Prologue's concluding section'--he seems generally to have made good the claim in his preface to print an authentic text." Like Brandt, Molinaeus was a fairly conscientious editor by the standards of the tines. In 1647 Jean Fronteau, canon of St. Geneviave of Paris, published his two-volume edition of Ivo's complete works. The first volume contains the Decretum, 27supposedly re-edited in a new edition. In actuality, Fronteau simply reprinted the Molinaeus edition with only scattered alterations. Fronteau was soon to become a controversial figure because of his conflict with the previous editor of Ivo's letters, Souchet. on the basis of Fronteau's presentation of the letters, Souchet would accuse him of plaigarism. Scholars have also generally considered Souchet to have been a silent contributor to the edition of the Decretum in the Opera omnia, though Landau has shown that this argument, first advanced by Fournier, lacks concrete proof.'* Fronteau omits the Panormia in his edition, a clear indication of the success of Molinaeus' edition of the Decretum. In addition to the common version of Molinaeus' preface, Fronteau provides his own introduction to the edition in the form of an elaborate letter of dedication to Bishop Lescot of Chartres. He gives no information about manuscripts or his editorial method. It is only in his notes that we learn that the victorinus manuscript and a patristic manuscript from St Germain-des-Prés were used to "improve" the edition. Landau judges these notes useless, pointing out as well that they hardly cover all the changes Fronteau actually made.“* Examination of the few notes on the Prologue confirms this scepticism. Fronteau introduces one reading into the Prologue. At line 344 he gives a variant in the excerpt of the 28letter of cyril of Alexandria based, apparently, upon the Greek text: autem] melius nunc, quia in graeco ..." Other variant readings given by Fronteau are taken from those listed by Molinaeus. Apart from these readings, Fronteau presents the Prologue essentially unchanged from the Molinaeus edition, thus weakening his claim in the preface that the edition is an improvement over its predecessor: "A gift that I feel you will not despise, for it contains that in which you excell all others: the highest erudition."”’ But Fronteau's edition is hardly an improvement over the work of Molinaeus, whether in the Prologue or in the Decretun. Dom Gellé Dissatisfied with previous editions, the Benedictine scholar Jean Gellé undertook a new edition of Ivo's collections at the beginning of the eighteenth century. Unfortunately, the editions were never completed, but the extensive preparatory dossiers he compiled survive in two Parisian manuscripts, BN lat. 12317 and 12318. The extent of his notes and collations, as well as the surviving correspondence with contemporaries on the subject of Ivo's collections, pay tributes to his energy and diligence.“* In the course of his research he came across several manuscripts of the Panormia which he collated against the Molinaeus 29edition. Unfortunately, he has little to say about the Prologue.‘ The Prologue in the Ratrologia Latina The Fronteau edition provided the foundation for the version printed in volume 161 of the Patrologia latina. Unlike Fronteau, the Patrologia includes both the Decretum and the Panormia. The Prologue is, however, divided between the two collections, for the text is printed before the Decretum, while a table of rubrics precedes the Panormia. These rubrics have been reprinted from the Vosmedian edition. They are intended to represent the Prologue as found with the Panormia and, as a result, give a false picture of the tradition. Though the editor informs the reader that the first thirty-four rubrics, or capitula, correspond to the Prologue before the Decretum, their presentation before the Panormia ignores the separate tradition of rubrics contained in the Prologues attached to the Decretun preserved in the earlier editions.” The separation of the rubrics and text may have been a consequence of the continuing uncertainty over the authenticity of the two collections. Thus, while Migne appropriated the Prologue's text from Fronteau, its rubrics came from Vosmedian, thus confusing the two traditions. Not all of these rubrics are found as well in the Decretum 30tradition, nor are the unique rubrics of vd and vt found in Migne. Without exception, the version of the Prologue in the Patrologia latina has been the text used in every examination of Ivo's treatise. This is unfortunate, for this edition presents a hybrid text, one that fails to account for the diversity of both traditions. Neither the earlier printed tradition behind nor the manuscripts wholly justify this presentation. Fortunately, there are few alterations in the Prologue text, most readily explainable as typographical errors.‘! Nevertheless, we do not encounter the most authentic, representative text of the Prologue in Migne. Some Conclusions The printed editions of the Decretum and Panormia are difficult to evaluate. Both traditions have similar origins in the efforts of Renaissance jurists to recover to recover an historic legal text for their readers. The printed traditions of the collections passed through intermediate stages to their final presentation in Migne, and the descent of the Prologue text was clearly shaped by the changing appreciation of the authenticity of the two collection: Neither printed tradition could claim an unchallenged authority. The printed Prologue silently 31reflects this ongoing debate over the primacy and authenticity of the Decretum and the Panormia, for the Prologue was assigned to either collection without comment. The text in Migne is the culmination--or perhaps better put, the bilge--of this long, diverse printed history. The Prologue in Migne is not incorrect, at least in the sense of presenting a radically different, or willfully corrupt version. Here one reads a text more or less faithful to the tradition that passed through Fronteau, a tradition that is linked to ‘the work of Molinaeus and the Victorinus Decretum. The edition is, however, a failure precisely because it fails both to capture an earlier form of the text and to indicate the diversity of the textual tradition. None of the editions, least of all the one in Migne, begins to reveal the tradition that found such a wide audience in the twelfth century. To encounter the Prologue and understand its flexible tradition, we must go beyond the editions to the manuscripts, not because the editions are wildly corrupt but because they are inadequat. The Prologue and the Editions of Ivo's Letters While the manuscript transmission of the Prologue among Ivo's letters will be discussed more fully below in the chapter on the text's influence outside of canon law, it is appropriate to consider here briefly its 32complicated printed history text among the various editions of the letters. Ivo's letters were the last of his works to be printed. The first edition of the letters was composed by Frangois Juret in 1585, almost a century after the Brant edition of the Panormia. Despite the lateness of this date, it is evident that the letter collection was not unknown to sixteenth-century scholarship. At least two paper manuscripts of the letters can be dated to the sixteenth century, manuscripts that also include the Prologue in the collection.” These exemplars indicate at least some contemporary interest in the letters and, by extension, in the Prologue. Contemporaries praised Francois Juret (1553-1626) as a careful, thorough editor. In addition to his edition of Ivo's letters--revised in 1609--Juret also edited and commented upon the works of Synmacus and Cassiodorus.” The dedication of the first edition of the letters is to his famous contemporary Pithou, with whom he was apparently well acquainted.“ This close association caused at least two scholars to ascribe the edition to Pithou.** Juret's notes to his edition give little insight into his editorial method or the types of manuscripts utilized. Though there is no reference to a manuscript in his preface to the second edition, he does claim to have collated many exemplars in order to improve upon 33his first edition.” He also lists the sources of his models, including St. Victor and st. Germain-des-Prés, as well as the private collections of Putaneus and Labbeus.* The presence of marginal readings printed in the edition supports his claim to have collated several exemplars. Juret includes the Prologue at the conclusion of the letters. He does not comment on the text in his notes. It is therefore unclear whether the text was added from another formal source or whether a manuscript of the letters transmitted the Prologue at the end of the collection. The Prologue is entitled "Prologus in Decretum" and is intact. The text is also furnished with several rubrics, of which two are apparently unique to the tradition.* Juret has also provided numerous marginal notes that cross-reference the Prologue with Ivo's letters and Gratian's Decretum. It appears that at least two manuscripts were used for these variants, for they are designated either al. or yc. Apart from occasional transpositions in word order, the text consistently follows the version of the most common transmission with the Panormia.” The marginal readings--like the text--cannot be traced at present to a specific manuscript or group." Finally, there is no evidence of any epistolary features in the Prologue text, for it lacks all the constituant parts of the medieval letter such as the salutatio. 34The Prologue does not appear in subsequent editions of the letters. In the edition prepared by Souchet--the edition appropriated by Fronteau for his Opera omnia-- the text is omitted without comment.” This edition passed without alteration into Migne. Neither Migne nor the later translation of the letters provided by Lucien Merlet discuss the Prologue printed by Juretus.” The critical study of the letter collection began in the late nineteenth century. The Sackur edition of the letters concerning investiture marked the first attempt to analyze the complex manuscript tradition, especially of those letters that served the further purpose of providing texts and arguments to the polemics of the Investiture Contest.” subsequent scholars such as Dom F.S. Schmitt also brought unknown letters to light. Nevertheless, the transmission of the Prologue among the letters was not considered. It was not until the partial edition of the letters composed by Jean Leclercq that the Prologue's transmission among the letters began to be considered. ‘The edition, the first attempt to provide a modern critical version of the tradition, was a landmark in Ivonian studies. The edition is, however, severely limited, not only because it remains incomplete, but also because it is based upon a relatively narrow selection of manuscripts." Leclercq also does not consider the specific transmission of the Prologue in 35the Juret edition. our later examination of the Prologue's circulation among the letters will be an new attempt to address some of these issues, The Prologue and the Letters of Hildebert of Lavardin ‘The Prologue also appears in the printed works of Ivo's contemporary, Hildebert of Lavardin. In the Patrologia latina, it is designated letter 53 in the second section of Hildebert's letters. (PL 171.278-84). Here the editor has reproduced the edition composed by the Maurist scholar Beaugendre at the beginning of the eighteenth century.” While Ivo was recognized as an outstanding canonist by his contemporaries--including Hildebert, who sent him a number of letters on various legal matters”-- Hildebert's fame rested instead on his extensive letter collection. His letters were considered a model of style and their influence lasted throughout the twelfth century. only once does Hildebert betray an apparent interest in canon law. In a letter of 1119, he refers in passing to a still uncompleted canonical collection, “exceptiones autem decretorum." The phrase instantly brings Ivo's Prologue to mind, and has been suggested as the justification for Beaugendre's inclusion of the text in his edition.” The letter also caught the attention 36of August Theiner, who argued that the collection might be the Collection in Ten Parts. He presented several persuasive circumstantial arguments to argue the case.” ‘These arguments have failed to convince subsequent scholars.” Certainly the Prologue found in the Beaugendre edition does not agree with the version found transmitted with the Collection in Ten Parts.” It can only be said with some degree of certainty that Hildebert's knowledge of the canons--as shown in his letters--was almost wholly derived from Ivo, whether or not it was ever separately compiled in a canonical collection.” Despite the presence of the Prologue in the Beaugendre edition, there has been little study of the text itself, which significantly differs from other versions. Scholars have been content to criticize the edition, including its inclusion of the Prologue.” This criticism is typified by the remarks of Manitius, who refers to the edition as the product of an impossible editorial method.”* Despite the consistant criticism of the edition, examination of the extensive manuscript tradition of Hildebert's letters does indeed provide support for Beaugendre's decision to include the Prologue. although he fails to give specific information about his manuscripts, Beaugendre does emphasize that he has published both printed and original materials in his 37work.”’ The research of Peter von Moos, the principal modern scholar of Hildebert's works, has not only uncovered many examples where Ivo's letters have been transmitted in tandem with Hildebert's,” but also a broad class of manuscripts where the Prologue is regularly found among the letters. Von Moos designates this group "o" in his classification of the manuscripts.” Thus, there were models available for the version printed by Beaugendre.” Analysis of Prologue in the Beaugendre version reveals its general agreement with at least one manuscript from the "0" class: Paris BN lat. 2903. The anuscript is well known to students of medieval epistolography, for, in addition to Hildebert's letters, it contains the letters of Meinhard of Bamberg, which were analyzed in a classic study by Carl Erdmann.” As for the Prologue, it concludes the manuscript on fol. 7er-81v. The text agrees closely with the version given by Beaugendre, including its incomplete form. The text gives lese than half of the normal version.” In addition to the omitted material, other readings support this fundamental agreement. Sowe Conclusions on the Prologue's Printed History The Prologue's diverse printed history reflects the popularity and flexiblity of the treatise. The reader of 38the version in the Patrologia latina is encountering only one branch of a complicated tradition. By virtue of its transmission with three separate Ivonian texts, the twin canonical collections and the letters, the Prologue came down to modern readers through a variety of channels. The separate presentation among the letters of Hildebert of Lavardin only complicates this rich, but confusing, text-history. Only the manuscripts will help us to get beyond this confusion. Rditorial Method Introduction A textual critic enganged upon his business is not at all like Newton investigating the motions of the planetg; he is much more like a dog hunting for fleas. This terse, ironic comment by A-E. Housman provides much needed caution to the editor of medieval texts. While the classical stemmatic method is founded upon the premise that rational, scientific analysis can unlock a textual tradition, great editors like Housman have always recognized the limitations of theory. Editing depends upon art, not machinery. Texts are products of human genius and frailty, and a manuscript tradition is frequently shaped by both qualities in good measure. 39‘The descent of a text lies beyond the "laws" common to science and mathematics, for it is absolutely inseparable from the human element. Only an editorial method sensitive to the flexibility, capriciousness, and occasional irrationality of textual transmission can satisfy Housman's word of caution. Housman's words are particularly appropriate for the editor of medieval legal texts. Texts such as the Pecketum and the Panormia--along with the Prologue--were living, practical documents which today demand an equally flexible editorial approach.” To understand a text like the Prologue is to respect the complexities of its transmission. An edition concerned only with the discovery of the earliest, "pure", version, would at best isolate only a single branch of a rich tradition. At worst, such an edition could present a text that its audience never knew." All editions are compromises with tradition, and all--excepting perhaps editions from an autograph manuscript--introduce error and artificiality into the document. Given this dilemma, it seems best in editing the Prologue to err on the side of complexity, to preserve as much as possible of the tradition of the text within the confines of a critical form. The tension between text and reception lies at the heart of the Prologue's complex descent. The size and diversity of the text's transmission demonstrate its success. The sheer number of manuscripts makes it 40impossible for the editor to narrow the tradition quickly down to a few, convenient, early witnesses. Recognizing this problem, this edition is based on a wide selection of the manuscripts. still, not all manuscripts have been examined and consequently some branches of the Prologue's reception may have been overlooked. There are also problems and ambiguities inherent in the proc of editing a text whose principal transmission was attached to other works. Until the complex, extensive traditions of the Decretun, the Panormia, and Ivo's letters have been established, any edition of the Prologue must be considered tentative. Despite these restrictions, this edition of the Prologue has attempted to isolate and follow the trail of common variants within a broad selection of the extant witnesses, despite the allure of a diplomatic edition based on a single, early witness, a solution admittedly attractive in the face of the complex tradition.” ‘The main features of the textual tradition may be briefly summarized. collation revealed an important break in the tradition of the Prologue with the Panornia at the conclusion of the text (line 581). Ina significant number of manuscripts from separate regions, the final three lines of the Prologue are missing. These lines refer to the capitulatio of a collection. This variant, along with others, helped to isolate a branch 41of the tradition which I believe contains the earliest recoverable form of the text's transmission as a prologue. This version, found in Paris, BN lat. 10742 (Pt), provides the foundation for the edition. In addition to this early group of Panormia Prologues, a Liége manuscript, UB 230 (Ly), transmits an independent version of the text which lacks both the introduction and conclusion common to the majority of the manuscripts in all forms of transmission, thus omitting all the sections that transform it into a Prologue. This manuscript may contain the earliest version of the Prologue, a version that has apparently survived only in this manuscript. Ly cannot serve as the basis of the edition, but its readings have been preserved in the apparatus. In all other instances of the text's transmission, whether attached to the canonical collections or independently transmitted among the letters or as a separate treatise, the Prologue has clearly been derived from its transmission with the Panormia. The text is almost universally found in a complete form largely similar to that given throughout the printed tradition. The challenge of initially selecting and examining the extant manuscripts confronts every editor. Along with the challenge of examinatio comes the task of evaluation: xecensio. It is useful to consider this editorial process in two phases: the initial selection 42and examination based largely on external criteria; and ‘the subsequent analysis of the variants produced by examination and collation, in short, the internal criteria.” The Prologue's vast tradition greatly complicates these tasks. From the outset, the number and geographic spread of manuscripts suggested the advisability of multiple base manuscripts for the initial collations. Here was an intial approach to the tradition from external criteria, one providing not only an array of manuscripts to be initially examined and collated but also a way of avoiding the "tyranny of the copy text", where a single manuscript used for initial collation gains importance over time to the exclusion of alternative readings in other witnesses.” The geographical spread of the manuscripts provided another significant piece of external evidence in the tradition. special attention was paid to manuscripts with origins outside of northern France, preferably from distant regions. Examination of manuscripts from peripheral areas hoped to identify witnesses which might contain earlier readings," despite the apparently rapid @iffusion of the Prologue throughout Europe in the first half of the twelfth century.” It will be shown below that this method of external analysis helped to isolate the earliest version of the Prologue transmitted with the Panormia. In addition to the external criteria mentioned 43above, other considerations also governed the selection of the base manuscripts for collation. The Victorinus manuscript (Pd) provided the base for collation of the Prologues transmitted with the Decretum and its abridged or derivative versions. Three manuscripts of the Prologue with the Panormia were selected for initial collation of this large cl: Ma (Munich, Clm 28223); sa (Sankt Paul im Lavanthal, stiftsbiblothek Cod. 22/1); vs (Vatican, Archivio San Pietro G 19). All three Panormia Prologues were chosen because of their origins, with Ma and Vs clearly not copied in France. Additionally, Ma and Vs were selected becaus> their Panormia end at 8.134, matching Fournier's designation of the collections rrimitive version.” Collation of the Prologue has since demonstrated that this classification remains useful but no longer normative. Sa was also chosen on the basis of a recent analysis of the manuscript which dated it to the early twelfth century.” Analysis of selected sections in the Panormia itself also supplemented this work on the transmission of the Prologue with this collection.” The scope of the Prologue's tradition ccuplicates the evaluation of the variants themselves--the examination from internal criteria. The number of nanuscripts--as well as the density and compression of their tradition into a relatively short period of time-- has undoubtedly given many opportunities for 44contamination.” Even when contamination is not at work, the task of selecting and interpreting variant readings is not easy. There is often tension between internal and external evidence within a manuscript tradition, and an accompanying polarity within the internal criteria employed to evaluate variant readings. Some of the conflicting claims are obvious: the problem of extrenely corrupt readings in early manuscripts or, conversely, readings faithful to the author's style in later witnesses. There are also conflicting demands within the canons of internal evidence, for even the time-honored maxims of lectio difficilior potior or lectio brevior praeferenda may not prove reliable guides when evaluating variants. While shorter or more difficult readings may frequently prove to come from an earlier stage in the tradition, they may also sometimes be products of scribal intervention at a later date. This complication is particularly appropriate to the question of the omitted sections of the Prologue in the manuscripts discussed below. Finally, even a lengthy, conventional reading may in fact be the original.” The complexities of a diverse manuscript tradition overwhelm the maxims of textual criticism. An additional obstacle to the evaluation of variants within the tradition is the overlapping of readings among several manuscript clusters. In the prolegomena to his edition of the Collection in 74 45Titles, John Gilchrist admits that key variants are all too often not neatly confined to a single manuscript class: In a text located in seventeen manuscripts, it would be strange indeed if sone apparently "significant" variants did not occur common to manuscripts of different families or groups--but to disturb a firmly based relationship between two or more manuscripts for the sake of a few difficult variants seems to me--unless the new relationship solves more problems--to aim a perfection impossible to attain in the present state of the manuscripts of 747. What was valid for Gilchrist's edition of a text in seventeen manuscripts is clearly applicable to the vast Prologue tradition. The compression of the main transmission into a short period of time--almost all manuscripts date from the first three quarters of the twelfth century--leaves the editor with a mass of competing contemporaneous readings, variants frequently shared among several manuscript groups.” Thus, some “difficult variants" do remain in this edition, variants that frequently prevent a more discrete separation of manuscript clusters. It is chiefly for this reason that sigla are not employed in the apparatus criticus to denote clusters of manuscripts in agreement. Examination from internal criteria seeks the eventual isolation of crucial, significant variants from which the descent of the text may be inferred. It is a 46fundamental assumption of recension that certain variants are discriminators that can group and divide manuscript clusters horizontally and indicate the descent of the text. There is no set rule for the determination of a significant reading, save that it should not be easily reproducable through simple mechanical error.” In the Prologue there are several main types of significant readings--some breaks in the tradition: major omissions or transpositions in the text; differences among the rubrics; the transmission of glosses with the text. Additionally, other variants such as minor transpositions of word order or peculiarities in orthography have proven useful when the sheer weight of their agreement has linked two manuscripts already paired on the basis of more significant readings. A good example of this is the close relationship of Sa and v1 (Vat. lat. 1360), where both manuscripts agree even in ninor points of spelling, including proper names: Nevertheless, the general stability of the Prologue text has made the few truly significant variants quite clear; the resolution of affinities within the major manuscript clusters has, however, often come from the combination of both significant and non-significant readings. For this reason, no reading was excluded from consideration during the initial evaluation of the manuscripts.” A special problem is posed by the presence of marginal or interlinear readings in a number of 47manuscripts. In some cases it appears that these indicate contamination from a second exemplar, for example in the borrowing of glosses by manuscripts whose Prologue text does not generally accord with the text common to the majority of glossed manuscripts. Vl is a good example of this. Like the general problem with the evaluation of readings in the text itself, the analysis of marginal variants or alternative readings is difficult. Contamination is not the only possible origin of these readings, for they may have been already present in the exemplar. This was typical of popular texts throughout the Middle Ages.” It is also a maxim of textual criticism that recension and emendation must be made from an intimate knowledge of the text and, if possible, its author's style. Familiarity with subject and style count more than the canons of criticism.” analysis of the sources in the Prologue provides a good test for the evaluation of variants on the basis of these criteria, especially the question of subject material. In the Prologue Ivo has fashioned many layers of text, a web of citations and allusions to authorities bound together by his own commentary. The selection and presentation of the sources in the text provide insight into both Ivo's style and his knowledge of the subject. Apart from the variants in those passages that cone directly from Ivo, the citations themselves offer 48significant variants. Nevertheless it is difficult to decide how these should be evaluated. Some recent editions of canonical collections-~ notably Gilchrist's edition of the Collection in 74 Titles--have employed a comparison of the variants in the manuscript tradition with their transmission in the most likely formal source.” This analysis on the basis of comparison with formal sources in fact is the foundation of Gilchrist's editorial method. It is, however, a method of limited utility in the analysis of canonical texts. Evaluation on the basis of formal sources alone could only be made when the text history of the source is complete. None of the classical canonical collections are presently anyvhere near this state. Not even the Collection in 74 Titles is exhaustively presented in Gilchrist's edition, for a further, significant branch of the tradition has since come to light.” With the influential Pseudo-Isidorian collections, a crucial source of the Collection in 74 Titles, we are even further away from an adequate, critical picture of their transmission and reception, particularly in their regional or local forms. Clearly the outdated edition of Hinschius does not provide an adequate foundation for the evaluation of variants on the basis of comparison of later texts with Pseudo- Isidore. ‘There are additional problems confronting this 49method. Compilations arise from the scribal practice of subsequently correcting or improving citations through comparisons with other exemplars of the source: “a dilemma acknowledged by Gilchrist. Moreover, unless they are nonsense, readings divergent from the critical editions of formal sources do not necessarily indicate a corrupt text, even when they are confined to a minority of the manuscripts. It is just as plausible that an author may have used an alternative version of the source, now perhaps lost, which later scribes emended. Thus, the selection of a reading more congruent with the formal source would instead further compound the intervention in the tradition begun by the scribe. Thus, while comparisons with formal sources may indeed prove occasionally useful, particularly when there are large numbers of variants or truly decisive agreements or disagreements in the tradition, they cannot presently furnish an absolutely reliable foundation for an editorial method. This technique has accordingly played no role in the ection of manuscripts and readings in this edition. In conclusion, there are several assumptions behind the editorial method in this edition. First, it is assumed that manuscripts sharing significant variants are somehow related. Second, there is clear contamination of the tradition at several points, and it is therefore likely that the main body of the Prologue's 50tradition was thus occasionally modified or "improved" by scribal intervention, particularly in its sources. Finally, many of the manuscript groupings can only be loosely distinguished, especially within the broad, common text found in the majority of the manuscripts. Some Conclusions Behind the precise canons of textual criticism and the branches of a stemma codicum lie fundamentally subjective decisions. If modern editors are perhaps less Prone to wild emendation than those of the early modern period, they still remain no less restricted by the frequently capricious behavior of their manuscripts, which often provide too many decisive readings or none at all. The "true" text cannot be recoverable from the extant manuscripts, but they are all the editor has. at best, one can only lay bare the probable outlines of a complex tradition. This is the goal, and the limitation, of this edition. Despite the limitations of method and evidence, this edition has sought an authentic version of Ivo's text. What now remains is a summary of how this text was unearthed from the manuscript tradition. ‘The Earliest Forms of the Text This section reappraises the traditional view 51considering the Prologue as merely the introduction for one of the canonical collections. I will examine two interrelated aspects of the complex manuscript tradition. First, I will argue that the Prologue was a treatise composed and circulated prior to the compilation of the Decretum and Panormia. Second, I will examine a family of manuscripts that may represent an early stage of the text's transmission as a prologue to the Panormia. This version also supports Fournier's contention that the Prologue belonged first to the Panormia. These twin aspects of the Prologue's tradition should help to lay the foundation for a critical examination of this landmark text in the evolution of medieval canon law. At the outset it should be noted that there seems to be little doubt concerning the Prologue's authenticity. Its language and sources echo throughout Ivo's correspondence.” Moreover, medieval writers clearly considered Ivo to be its author, as seen in the compilers' prologues to Panormia-derivative collections such as the Collection in 10 Parts." While a later audience might be uncertain about the origins of the Panormia,™ the Prologue's author was never in doubt. To date, the Prologue's extensive manuscript tradition has not been assessed. It survives today in over 170 manuscripts. These transmit Ivo's text not only in its usual form preceding the Decretum and Panormia 52but also among his letters, or attached to other canonical collections, or occasionally as an independent treatise. The extent and diversity of its transmission demonstrate the Prologue's versatility, which undoubtedly contributed to its continuing popularity, even after Gratian's Decretum had begun to supplant the Ivonian collections." While the Prologue's influence on the evolution of canonical jurisprudence in the twelfth century is unquestioned, its origins remain obscure. central to the modern position on the text's composition and purpose is the debate almost a century ago between Paul Fournier and his Austrian counterpart, Franz Bliemetzrieder. Fournier concluded that the Prologue originally introduced the Panormia, basing his position on the systematic structure of the text and its reference to the subsequent divisions of a canonical collection.“ In his polemical monograph of 1917, Zu_den Schriften Ives von Chartres," Franz Bliemetzrieder argued against Fournier, stating that the text was originally the introduction to the Decretum. To Bliemetzrieder, the Prologue belonged to the Decretum by virtue of the larger collection's primacy over the Panormia. He also perceived a thematic link between the sources of law in the Prologue and the composition of the Decretum.* Neither scholar subsequently modified his view." 53Scholars have for the most part carefully skirted the issue of the Prologue's origins and purpose, either siding with Fournier’ conclusions or leaving the issue open." yet neither Fournier nor Bliemetzrieder investigated its origins by examining its manuscript tradition, though both extensively discussed manuscripts of the collections.”* as will be shown below, the manuscripts do indeed confirm Fournier's conclusion; they also circumvent the debate entirely. The manuscripts indicate that the text was likely composed prior to the collections, and was transformed into a prologue with the compilation of the Panormia. I. The Earliest Form of the Text Ivo's Prologue is noticeably different from earlier introductions to canonical collections.From the earliest collections, most prologues had either taken the form of dedicatory letters or provided brief synopses of the structure and purpose of the collection they introduced. In both cases, the prologue proclaimed the compiler's debt to tradition and advertized his useful arrangement of authoritative texts in the new compilation.’” While at first glance Ivo's Prologue apparently shares some features with these earlier prefaces--notably the review of sources, the concern for the reader's benefit, and the continuity with a subsequent collection at the end-- 54its very length suggests that it originated as an independent treatise rather than a specific introduction to either the Decretum or the Panormia.“* This alternative to the earlier debate over the text! origins was recently suggested by Peter Landau.” It is striking that the Prologue's specific references to a subsequent canonical collection are both brief and limited to passages at the opening and conclusion. Three sections transform this work into a prologue. The opening passage that extends through the citation from Psalm 24.10 clearly provides an introduction to a compilation.” secondly, an explanation towards the end of the Prologue defending the insertion of secular law seems also to refer to a collection.” Thirdly, the conclusion to the Prologue immediately following this defense provides transition to a capitulatio outlining a canonical collection.” Apart from these sections, there are no further, internal indications that the text was composed as a preface. Without these transformative sections, the text ceases to be a prologue. What remains is a treatise on Jurisprudence, a treatise that establishes the categories and limits of canon law and examines the dimensions of dispensation as the action of caritas in law. Thus, a manuscript transmitting the Prologue as an independent treatise without these three transformative 55sections could indicate the primitive form of the text. While a number of manuscripts do circulate the text by itself, most transmit the text with all three sections intact. In one manuscript, however, the Prologue does indeed lack these crucial passages, thus presenting what I believe to be its original state: Liage, Bibliothéque de l'Université 230 (Ly). ‘The Liage manuscript containing the independent Prologue in this distinctive came to light through the research of Robert Kretzschmar on the Liber de nisericordia et iustitia of Alger of Ligge. as part of his analysis of the potential influence of Ivo on Alger, Kretzschmar discovered Ly, a manuscript that could be dated to the early twelfth century which, in addition to several polemical works, also transmitted a previously unidentified version of the Prologue.” He did not, however, examine the manuscript in detail, nor did he evaluate the text in Ly in light of other manuscripts of Ivo's Prologue. The Lidge manuscript provides a significant witness to the Prologue's early history. Ly contains 142 folia, with the Prologue at its conclusion on fol. 140ra~ l42vb. It belonged to the abbey of St. Trond in the Aiocesis of Lidge before its acquisition by the university library, though it is not certain that it was written there. The Prologue is written in a single hand; a second, contemporary hand having corrected the 56text at several points.” The script supports Kretzschmar's suggestion that the manuscript could be dated to the first quarter of the twelfth century.” The text is neither decorated nor rubricated, and has only a sigle crude paraf and scattered capital initials to divide the text. There are no marginalia or glosses. Besides its omission of the transformative ections, Ly offers a number of interesting variant readings." The variants indicate a distinct--though not radically divergent--recension of the text. As the readings below indicate, Ly is itself probably a secondary or tertiary copy of an even earlier form: 42 his) omnibus add. Ly 106 peccat} ait add. Ly 152 indulgentie] uenie Ly 186 reddit] eis add. Ly 427 orthodoxorum] catholicorum Ly In these readings the text appears derivative, sometimes simplified, sometimes augmented through the addition of explanatory words. It is not improbable that several of these are products of the intrusion of interlinear explanatory or suppletive glosses from the archetype, for these readings are unique to Ly.” Despite the probable intrusion imposed by intervening copies between Ly and an earlier form, I would argue that Ly likely 57transmits the primitive form of Ivo's text. Ly also appears to be unique.” Kretzschmar's discovery oy the Lidge manuscript has not: only added a new witness to the flourishing study of canon law in the region during the Investiture Contest™ but also has provided the first evidence from the manuscripts that Ivo's text originated 6 a treatise on jurisprudence, not as a prologue. IZ. The Earliest Form of the Text as Prologue While the complete omission of the three transformative sections appears to be unique to Ly, a number of manuscripts lack the conclusion that provides transition to a capitulatio: "Deinceps singularum parcium tocius uoluminis intencionem breuiter perstringemus, ut hinc prudens lector aduertat, quid in unaquacue parte sibi necessarium quere debeat."** The omission appears to be a key feature which, along with other readings, could isolate an earlier stage in the text's transmission.” Panormia Prologues ‘The omission of the transition to the capitulatio enables the isolation of a number of manuscripts. While most of these transmit the Prologue with the Panormia, several circulate the text in this form among Ivo's 58letters. The Prologues with the Panormia will be examined first, as it is likely that the transmission of this form among the letters originated in a Prologue detached from this collection. The Panormia Prologues include: Admont, Stiftsbibliothek 257 (Ad) (S. Germany, s. XIT mid.) London, BL Royal 7 B v (Lb) (England, s. XII™-XIII" London, BL Egerton 749 (Lj) (England, s. xII**) oxford, Jesus 26 (0j) (Cirencester, s. XII mid.) oxford, Jesus 50 (Ok) (England, s. XII mid.) Pari: BN lat. 2472 (Pq) (N. France, s. XIT mid.) Paris, BN lat. 3869A (Ps) (N. France, s. XII mid.) Paris, BN lat. 10742 (Pt) (N. Franc XII mid.) Salzburg, Archabtei St. Peter, Stiftsbibliothek a. viii 15 (Sz) (S. Germany, s. XIT mid.) Vendome, BM 160 (Vm) (N. France, s. XII*~*)** Despite occasional contamination in some manuscripts through correction against manuscripts outside this group, the Prologues in this family consistently agree, not only in their omission of the conclusion but also in other features. These manuscripts suggest an early form of the text, thus supporting Fournier's argument for the Prologue's primacy with the Panormia. Their geographic spread also demonstrates that the omission of the conclusion was not a ndom event but instead a feature 59of a distinct class of manuscripts. This diffusion, in regions as widely separated as England and Austria, also argues for this shorter form as a more primitive version of the text.” ‘This version was originally identified through analysis of Ad. Its omission of the conclusion, along with other significant variant readings, helped to isolate related manuscripts. Their frequent agreement with the version in Sebastian Brant's editio princeps of the Panormia against the text in Migne is also striking, though Brant does include the concluding section of the Prologue (reference is to the columns in Migne): Title: Incipit--contentarum] Lb Lj 0j ok Ps Pt (Brant) om. Ad Sz 48D ipsis] inuicem Ad Lb Lj 0j Ok Pq Ps Pt Sz ipsis inuicem Sz” (Brant) 51D sit cedendum] cedendum est Ad Lb Lj Ok Pq Ps Pt sz* (Brant) cedendum sit sz* 51D Paulus} apostolus (all manuscripts, including Brant) 53B populorum) plurimorum (all manuscripts, including Brant) 55¢ romane--episcopus] romanus antistes Ad Lb Lj Ok Pq Ps Pt Sz (Brant) romane ciuitatis antistes 0j vm 57A statuta] instituta ad 0j Sz vm constituta Lb Lj ok Pq Ps Pt (Brant) 57C et'--celo] et cetera Ad Pq Ps Pt Sz (Brant) om. Lb 60Lj 0k 60A hec--debeat} set hec hactenus om. Ad Lb Ly 0j ok Pa" Ps Pt om. Sz vm Explicit prologus add. Brant Given the wide range of Brant's contacts, he may have been influenced by a manuscript similar to the Salzburg manuscript, though this is conjecture.” The rubrics to these Prologues also indicate both additional points of agreement and occasional instances of contamination.” Ad and Sz are particularly congruent. Both Prologues were originally unrubricated, though a slightly later hand has subsequently added the marginal rubrics in the Admont manuscript.” A distinctive feature of both manuscripts is their unusual placement ef the Prologue following the capitulatio of the Panormia.** Ad is written in an upright, clear southern German hand of second half of the twelfth century. Its medieval origin is uncertain, though it may have been copied in the scriptorium of Admont." The Panormia concludes at 8.134, followed by a single additional text." a brief appendix of texts concludes the manuscript.™? In addition to the Prologue and the Panormia, the manuscript is rich in other legal texts, including a partial version of the Collection in 74 Titles on fol. 72r-87r.* Finally, Ad also transmits Ivo's letters on fol. 121v-219v. The manuscript thus 61provided its reader with a very useful canonical source book. Like Ad, Sz is written in a south German hand of the second half of the twelfth century. Its medieval origin is also undetermined, though Salzburg certainly cannot be excluded, despite the omission of Sz in any of the extant booklists.* The Panormia concludes with 8.134. An extensive appendix follows the collection on fol. 114r-11er. While a number of Panormia, including Ad, tranmsit appendices of canonical texts,’ the sequence of canons in Sz agrees closely with the appendix in the Brant edition. The Prologues in Ad-Sz also share important features. Besides the readings noted above and their unusual presentation of the Prologue after the gapitulatio, the manuscripts share other distinctive variants.” While a second hand has corrected Sz against another manuscript at several points, it is clear that both manuscripts are closely related, perhaps linked by @ common archetype. While there is no decisive evidence for sz's origins, its close agreement with Ad argues for a connection with the Salzburg archdiocesis. The connection between Ad and Sz reflects the ongoing interest in canon law that accompanied reform at Salzburg during the first half of the twelfth century. A keystone of this reform was the establishment ofAdmont ,*** which rapidly developed into a leading center of piety and scholarship.” During the long tenure of abbot Gottfried I (1138-1165), Admont was at the center of intellectual life in the region.*” In his recent study of the earliest legal scholarship in upper Austria, Winfried stelzer has called attention to the importance of canonical studies at the newly reformed cloisters such as Admont. This interest in canon law can be directly traced to the influence of the French schools. an outstanding example of this influence is the Collectio Admontensis, a hetereogenous collection preserved in two recensions in two Admont manuscripts: Cod. 43 (fol. 198r-236v) and Cod. (fol. 1ra-20ra). The Collectio Adnontensis is a diverse compilation, including not only civil 1a material drawn from the southern French Exceptiones Petri and the Tibinger Rechtsbuch, but also a detached version of Tripartita B."” In the B recension (Cod. 48), two of the last three chapters are also cross-referenced with Gratian. Stelzer considers this parallel utilization of the Tripartita with Gratian to be evidence of Ivo's continuing influence during the period of the Decretun's reception.“* The Prologue and Panormia in Ad further illustrate this diverse interest in canon law at Admont in the mid- twelfth century. Though the picture is somewhat complicated by the manuscript uncertain origins, this 63is a qualification that applies equally well to many of the French canonical works examined by Stelzer, who generally leaves open the question of their origins.'* Clearly there were close ties between Admont and the cathedral at Salzburg, personal and institutional connections that provided convenient paths of scholarly exchange.“* The monastery of St. Georgen in the Black Forest also offered a potential channel for the exchange of scholars and texts.“ The monastery of Prilfening in the diocesis of Regensburg presented still another point of scholarly contact. Admont had been closely linked to Priifening since the abbacy of Wolfold (1115- 37), and a number of manuscripts in Admont's library contain works composed at the Bavarian cloister.*” Priifening also apparently acquired a Panormia from st. Georgen towards the middle of the century, a manuscript that fails to appear in the next booklist from 1165.'* Perhaps Ad or the parent manuscript of Ad and Sz came to Admont by one of these routes. Despite the uncertainty of the transmission of the Prologue in Ad and sz, their presence in the Salzburg archdiocesis indicates the text's significant role in regional canonical scholarship." Throughout the twelfth century--especially under the patronage of Archbishop Eberhard I (1147-1164)--scholarship flourished at Salzburg. Salzburg embraced the new teachings of the French schools, as demonstrated by Peter Classen in his 64study of early influence of scholasticism in the region. The influence of Ivo's works provides further evidence of these intellectual contacts between the schools of northern France and the reforned cloisters of Bavaria and Upper Austria.‘ Three Panormia Prologues in the Bibliothéque Nationale also agree fundamentally with Ad and Sz. The manuscripts, BN lat. 2472 (Pq), lat. 3869A (Ps), and lat. 10742 (Pt), share the omission of the conclusion with Ad-Sz, though a later hand has added it to Pq. While differences in their Panormia separate these manuscripts, the readings listed above indicate a common agreement in their Prologues.Pq is the most interesting of the three manuscripts. It is written in a French hand probably from the mid-twelfth century. In addition to the Prologue and the Panornia, the manuscript transmits a variety of texts, including extracts from the Liber Pontificalis and the canons of the Council of Rheims (1148).‘* Along with the Prologue, which contains several unique rubrics in addition to the omitted conclusion, the Panormia is also unusual. Besides the normal division of the collection into eight books, there are additional brief titles that further subdivide the collection. These indicate a possible parallel knowledge of Ivo's Decretum. This unusual system of subdivision may be unique within the tradition and suggests that, along with the various abbreviated 65forms of the collection, the Decretum had a wider influence than sometimes supposed.’** Ps and Pt appear to be contemporaneous with Pq and of similar origins. apart from the Fanormia there are no additional shared texts. Ps is the more interesting of the pair. Its Prologue is frequently marked with arks made by two hands in different arginal inscriptions also indicate the authority cited in the text. The "nota" marks extend * As for Pt, the Prologue is throughout the collection. unadorned with marks or glosses.” Another cluster of related manuscripts is apparently English in origin, two from the British Library (Lb, Lj) and a pair from the Bodleian at oxford (Oj, Ok). As noted above, collation has demonstrated the essential agreement of these Prologues with each other and with the other manuscripts in this family. once again, individual variations among these manuscripts preclude any direct dependence. ok and Lj transmit rubrics in the Prologue not repeated by Lb-0j, and 0} also gives several divergent readings not found in the other manuscripts.“ Analysis of the Prologue alone, however, cannot establish a closer connection between these manuscripts, beyond their general congruence. Lb and Lj are of English origins. Lb is written in a clear English hand of the twelfth century.’ The manuscript has probably been in London since at least 66the fifteenth century, though its earlier provenance remains uncertain.’” The Panormia concludes with 8.136, followed by a brief appendix beginning with a lengthy text on the Epiphany, a text shared with Lj.”* Further analysis also shows evidence of possible contamination by a manuscript related to London, BL Arundel 252. At Panormia 4-119a (fol. 72r-v), a commonly transmitted additional chapter is found in the text,’ while a econd text has been added in the margin. This text is found in only a few manuscripts, among them the Arundel Panormia.”* As for Lj, the manuscript exhibits no outstanding features and appears to be contemporaneous with Lb.” Both 0j and Ok are English in origin, though neither manuscript appears directly linked to the other. 0j is written in an English hand of the mid-twelfth century. It was probably copied at Cirencester.’”* on fol. 2v a rubricated note reads “Liber magistri .""”* The Panormia extends beyond 8.136.'” As for the Prologue, it is found on fol. 5r-15r. Rubrics and numerous paragraph signs divide the text. There are also occasional interlinear additions in the same hand and ink as the text that may either provide alternate readings or glosses.” Some marginal corrections, underlining, and brackets highlighting parts of the text are in a darker ink and appear to be later additions. As the above table of variants shows, 0j differs 67slightly from the other Prologues in this cluster, though its text still fundamentally agrees with the main features common to the subgroup. Although difficult to determine from the film, the Prologue in Vm also appears somewhat related to 0j.' ok is written in a clear English hand of the twelfth century, and appears to be perhaps a bit earlier than 0j. Its origin is uncertain, though it formed part of the bequest by Sir John Prise to Jesus College that also brought 0j to oxford.” Its Panornia is incomplete, concluding with 6.117. Unlike 0j, the Prologue in Ok is not furnished with glosses or marginalia. In conclusion, the wide geographical spread of this form of the Prologue's transmission with the Panormia, strongly suggests that the omission of the end was not a random, isolated event in the tradition.aAt the heart of the transmission may lie a French exemplar, now lost, that provided models for the manuscript clusters in England and southern Germany. This Panormia Prologue appears to be the most likely candidate for the text's earliest transmission as an introduction to a canonical collection. Prologue Among the Letters I have already briefly alluded to the Prologue's transmission among the printed versions of Ivo's 68letters. While this manuscript foundation of this aspect of the text-history will be explored in more detail in a subsequent chapter, we should now briefly consider one aspect of the transmission: its witness to the earliest form of the text connected with the Panormia. A significant number of manuscripts transmit the version with the omitted conclusion. Again it should be emphasized that there is no indication that the Prologue was originally a letter. Instead it appears likely that the text was introduced into the letter collection from a Panormia.“* Among the various forms of the Prologue's presentation among the letters, four examples have so far come to light that transmit the text with the transitional conclusion omitted." These are: Berlin (East), Deutsche Staatsbibliothek Philipps 1694 (Be) (Metz, s.XxII™) Erlangen, Universitdtsbibliothek 226" (Heilsbronn, s. XII") London, BL Cotton Claudius A vi (Lo) (England, s. xII*‘) Paris, BN lat. 18219 (fol. 53r-101v) (Pa) (N. France, s. XII mid.) Three of these manuscripts appear to be in close agreement. Be is a manuscript of 192 folios from the late twelfth century. It was copied at Metz.“ In addition to a partial collection of Ivo's letters, the 69manuscript contains a variety of texts written in several hands." The Prologue begins the collection of letters on fol. ira-sra, follawed then by the first letter of the collection, number twelve in the Migne edition.™ The text is presented without rubrics or glosses, with only a few marginal paragraph signs providing internal divisions. The Erlangen manuscript was also apparently written towards the end of the twelfth century. It originally belonged to the Cistercian foundation at Heilsbronn."” The manuscript contains a number of minor works in its 227 folia, with the Prologue on fol. 179r-185v, between a cluster of Ivo's sermons and a partial collection of his letters. Like the collection in Be, this collection begins with letter twelve.’” Pa is a manuscript composed of at three distinct, contemporary sections bound at different dates. The first section (fol. 1r-45v) is of northern French origins and dates to the early twelfth century. It transmits 2 variegated collection of canons. The third section (fol. 102r-126) contains an exegetical work. The second section (fol. 53r-101v) dates from the first half of the twelfth century and appears to have been written in France." The Prologue is found on fol. 53r-57r, and is followed by a partial collection of the letters and sermons that appears to be identical with the collections in the Berlin and Erlangen manuscripts. A 70title at the head of the Prologue reads: "Incipit liber iuonis carnotensis episcopi." This may refer to the entire hetereogenous collection of Ivonian material in Pa, including the Prologue, which forms a thematic unit.™ Like the Berlin manuscript, the Prologue lacks rubrics and glosses, with only a few internal parafs in the ink of the text. Two hands have written the text, with some marginal additions and corrections in a third, contemporary hand in a lighter ink. ‘The London manuscript (Lo) presents the Prologue within a different context. The text is found in an extensive collection of Ivo's letters, placed between letters 103 and 104. The script suggests an English origin and dating to the second half of the twelfth century. In addition to the Prologue, which is found on fol. 278v-284r, and the letters, Lo transmits fourteen of the sermons. The Prologue is written by one hand, and lacks rubrics and glosses. of the three manuscripts that have been collated, Be and Lo are in the closest agreement. Collation of the Erlangen manuscript would also likely establish a close link to these manuscripts. Despite the omission of the conclusion common to all three Prologues, variant readings in Be and Lo appear to separate these from the Ranormia Prologues discussed above. Apart from the title, which is omitted by Be, their readings appear closer to the version found in Migne, an edition 71essentially based on the Prologue to the Victorinus Pecketum (Paris, BN lat. 14315). This divergence indicates the complexity of the Prologue's tradition, pointing perhaps to another branch of the transmission with the omitted conclusion. The Prologue in Pa collates somewhat more successfully with the Panormia Prologues, particularly with oj." Some Conclusions To sum up: I would argue that manuscript evidence supports an argument for the Prologue's original composition as a treatise prior to the compilation of the Decretum and the Panormia. The Liage manuscript (Ly) and the family of Panormia Prologues with the omitted conclusion point the way to the earliest strata of the text's tradition. From the latter group I have chosen Pt as the foundation for the critical edition. These manuscripts have also begun to demonstrate the wide extent of the text throughout the twelfth century. Its extensive circulation supports the suggestion made by Stephan Kuttner that Ivo's treatise served as the the handbook of jurisprudence for the first half of the twelfth century.’ We now continue to trace this tradition as we examine the common form of the text linked to its transmission with the Panormia. 72‘The Common Forms of the Prologue In general, the Prologue is a very stable text. Except for the primitive group which omits the conclusion, the text usually appears intact, essentially similar to the form later printed by Brant and Molinaeus. This large group of manuscripts can, however, be further divided into several manuscript clusters. One was discovered through collation of a number of manuscripts against a Vatican manuscript of the Panormia, Vatican, Archivio San Pietro G 19 (Vs). Manuscripts in general agreement with Vs include: Pk: Paris, BN lat. 4284 Vb: Vatican, Barb. lat. 502 vk: vatican, Reg. lat. 972 vz: Vatican, Vat. lat. 1362 Additionally, two Prologues transmitted with collections derived from the Panormia also largely agree with the manuscripts in this cluster: ver vatican, Vi Books) Wc: Vienna, 6NB 2178. (The Collection in 10 Parts) 1361. (collection in 13 These manuscripts will be considered in detail in the 73chapter analyzing the Prologue's reception by later canonists. The manuscripts of this cluster are far les: closely related than the Prologues of the Ad or Sa groups. Moreover, manuscripts related to Vs occasionally agree with the Prologue of the Sa group. In turn, a number of Prologues--including those found with the Decretum and its abbreviated versions 0 appear to be similar to Vs. Nevertheless, common features do enable the isolation of a manuscript cluster more closely related to Vs. As a by-product of this analysis, these manuscripts will once again provide further insight into the development of the Panormia tradition. Vs was initially chosen as the base for analysis of the vatican Fanormia manuscripts. As noted above in the discussion of editorial method, this selection was based on the manuscript 's presentation of the collection to 8.134. Subsequent examination and collation isolated a subgroup of manuscripts in general agreement with the Prologue in Vs. Like the other manuscripts chosen for the inital collations, Vs is an apparently early manuscript, likely dating from the first half of the twelfth century. Its origins are uncertain, though the hand suggests Italy.‘* An extensive appendix of 155 capitula also follows the Panormia without interruption or change of hand. other manuscripts contain similar appendicies,’ though few equal this one in length.’ 4Vs lacks both title and rubrication. It is thus immediately separated from the Prologues of the Sa group. The text also diverges at several points, probably through scribal error. In general, the Prologue in Vs deviates little from the text found in the editions of the Decretum and the Panormia. Moreover, the agreement of Vs is frequent with the consensus of the Decretum Prologues, especially with Pd, not only in the absence of a title but also in the text itself.” None of these readings are uniquely shared, but they suggest a closer affinity between the tradition of the Prologue with the Decretum and vs, itself representative of the most common version of the text with the Panormia- Like Vs, Vk (Vatican, Reg. lat. 972) is likely a product from the first half of the twelfth century. Its rounded script suggests an Italian origin. The Panormia extends to 8.136, thus including the additional chapters on election and investiture. vk also transmits an appendix of additional chapters, though it dees not appear to be related to the appendix in Vs, apart from a few common texts. ‘** Vk basically agrees with the Prologue in Vs. Apart from the presence of a brief title, “incipit prefatio iuonis carnotensis episcopi," the manuscript is unrubricated. only a few scattered parafs divide the text. While Vk agrees often with Vs, its own readings- 15as well as omissions due to homoiteleuton--prevent it from being either model or copy. It appears to have cone from a related manuscript. The Prologue and Panormia in Pk (Paris, BN lat. 4284) agree closely with Vk. The script of the manuscript suggests France and can be dated to the mid- twelfth century. Like vk, the Panormia in Pk concludes with 8.136. The readings of the Prologue also confirm the general agreement between the manuscripts.” Pk also contains an appendix containing papal decretals, canons, and some letters of Ivo similar to the one found in v2 While Vk and Pk show a general correspondence to vs, a pair of Vatican Panormia manuscripts Vb-Vz (vatican Barb. lat. 502 and vat. lat. 1362) stands somewhat closer to Vs. Though the Prologues in both manuscripts differ somevhat from the manuscripts described above and from each other--with Vz giving the most distinctive variants--they are still frequently in agreement. The connection between the manuscripts lies above all in their frequency of agreement within this cluster as opposed to any other group of Panormia Prologues. While they are never connected as closely as the manuscripts of other groups, such as those which omit the Prologue's conclusion, they are still closer 'to each other than to any other manuscript cluster. Vb is written in a Italian hand of the mid-twelfth 76century. Other texts in the manuscript also indicate its Italian origins.” The collection is incomplete, ending at 6.10. Vz is also Italian. The manuscript was written at the monastery of Santa Maria in Crescenzago, and its script can be placed in the middle of the twelfth century. Unlike Vb, the Panormia in this manuscript is complete. There is also an appendix of excerpts fron Ivo's Decretun following the collection at fol. 129r- 138r. This is apparently unique in the Panormia tradition.” In addition to the appendix, the manuscript also transmits numerous decretals from Eugene III, Lucius II, and Adrian IV. These also support an argument for Italian orgins, and help to date the manuscript.”* Both Vb and vz are rubricated. Though their titles aitter,™* most of their rubrics agree. Vb does, however, give two additional rubrics not found in vz." vb also shares an unusual rubric with two other manuscripts belonging to the glossed group of Panormia Prologues.*” As the text deviates from the other two Prologues despite this shared rubric, it may be a separate invention by the rubricator of Vb or perhaps an isolated gloss. Like the rubrics, the text of vb-Vz is frequently in agreement. Some of their shared readings are unique, for exampl. 358 cunctorum] rectorum Vb vz 7424 policronium] episcoporum add Vb vz 465 complere] implere Vb vz In addition to these readings, the manuscripts often share divergent word order. Their agreement in minor word transpositions mirrors the correspondence noted earlier between Sa and Me.** When the readings of vb and Vz conflict, vz generally stands alone against the other manuscripts. Vb will tend more often to agree with Vk-Vs, while vz will give significant variants.” Most of Vz's variants fit the context fairly well, for example the reading of "propinquitate" for “pro iniquitate" at line 378. Here the sense is appropriate to the text, where Ivo introduces citations from Scripture to support his argument that the sins of the fathers do not taint their sons. In sum Vb and Vz diverge often enough to suggest that their models, while related, were parallel to vk- Vs. The divergence of vz indicates that this manuscript was probably derived from a secondary, perhaps reworked, or glossed copy.” Additional Ccnmon Forms of the Prologue A second cluster of manuscripts should be considered an extension of the Prologues related to vs. These include: 78La: London, BL Arundel 252 Munich, Clm 11316 Munich, Clm 2593 Mg: Munich, Clm 22289 Pb: Paris, BN lat. 3869 In addition to these, there are other manuscripts in later, derivative brances of the tradition which contain similar Prologues. These include the Prologue transmitted with the Second Collection of chalons-sar- Marne (BM 75) and the detached version found in Vienna, ONB 2230. These manuscripts will be discussed below in the chapter on the Prologue's reception and influence in canon law. Like the manuscripts connected to Vs, the Prologues of this cluster are only loosely related. They transmit a common text of the Prologue similar to Vs and the other manuscripts discussed immediately above. Within this cluster, there are some closer agreements among the Prologues. As noted above, this association of the Prologues also provides insight into the larger question of the Panormia's transmission. Pb largely agrees with the text common to Vk-Vs. The manuscript appears to be early, perhaps no later than the second quarter of the twelfth century. The hand is French. The Panormia is given to 8.136, plus a single additional text not found in the Migne appendix." Like 79Vk-Vs, the Prologue in Pb is unrubricated of initials in citations serve to divide the text.” In general, the readings of Pb follow the common text of the Vs cluster. None of the unique variants in Vk-Vs are found in Pb-- especially their omissions due to homeoteleuton-~and this preclude pair. Likewi the vs manuscripts. When compared to the probable model Pb's direct origins in this manuscript Pb's omissions do not appear in any of common to Vb-Vz, Pb shows many similar characteristics, ‘though once again it cannot be clearly linked to any extant manuscript. Thus, Pb appears to fall between the other witnesses, and was perhaps copied from a model related to the Vs group.” = La was written by an English scribe in the middle of the twelfth century. It may have been copied at Newburg, as attested by a possession mark on fol. ir.” The collection shows some affinity with other manuscripts outside of this group of Panormia Prologues.*” unlike Pb, the Prologue in La is rubricated. Together with the readings of the text, these rubrics correspond to the readings of Vb-va. La also agrees with the Munich manuscripts Mb and Mc, especially the former.** Both Mb and Mc are products of Bavarian cloisters. Mb was probably copied at Polling, an Augustinian foundation reorganized under the Premonstratensian movement in the mid-twelfth century. Polling was an important center of education and reform, and it was 80here that Gerhoch of Reichersberg received his initial education.” The history of Polling's library remains obscure, and there is no citation of a Panormia in the extant booklists.”” The Panormia in Mb concludes with 8,134.79 Mc originally belonged to the Cistercian house at Aldersbach in the diocesis of Passau. It is clearly of German origins, and can be dated to the second half of the twelfth century.” Like Mb, there is unfortunately no citation of this manuscript in the foundation's extant medieval booklists. Aldersbach's history in the twelfth century paralleled that of Polling. Aldersbach had been an independent foundation before its reform to the Cistercian order. By 1146 it had become a daughter house of Ebrach in upper Franconia. Papal protection came in the following year and Aldersbach quickly became a leading reform center.” The monastery's first abbot, Sigfria (1147-1182), came from Ebrach and, though there is no mention of a Panormia, it is not improbable that either Mc or its model could have come with a core collection brought for the new library.” As for the Panormia, it is transmitted to 8.136, thus providing the two additional chapters not found in Mb. The rubrication of the Panormia also differs from Mb.” In addition to the Prologue and Panormia, Mc also contains the Sorrector of Burchard, which is occasionally independently transmitted as a penitential collection.™ 81Collation of the Prologues in Mb and Mc demonstrates their essential agreement, though neither is the direct copy of the other. They often agree both in rubrics and text, but each manuscript also diverges enough to preclude a direct relationship.’ Mc also gives the variant "scilicet--immobilibus" at line 171ff., thus placing it in closer agreement with Vb and vz. Lastly, the Prologue in Mc is incomplet omitting approximately the final quarter of the text. Since the omitted section ends in the middle of the citation on episcopal restitution (lines 424ff), there does not seem to be an editorial reason behind the omission. Another Munich manuscript transmits a Prologue similar to Mb and Mc, and perhaps derived from the latter text. The manuscript, now Munich Clm 22289 (Mg) orginally belonged to the Premonstratensian cloister at Windberg, one of the earliest foundations of this order in Bavaria. Windberg was founded about 1140 and was a daughter house of Premontré itself. Windberg's first abbot, Gebhard, was a leading figure in ecclesiastical reform in Bavarié and a close associate of Gerhoch of Reichersberg and Norbert of Magdeburg, the founder of the Premonstratensian order, and Bishop Kuno of Regensburg. ”* Unlike Aldersbach, we know somewhat more about the early library at Windberg. Gebhard was apparently very successful in building a large and diverse collection. 82A booklist from the end of his abbacy survives and witnesses his zeal for the library.” Gebhard gathered a good selection of contemporary authors in addition to the standard patristic texts, among them Rupert of Deutz and Hugh of St. Victor. There is, however, no mention of any Ivonian works in the list. In Mg the Prologue is found before an abridged version of the Panormia. Its model is uncertain.”* In addition to the abridged collection, Mg also transmits several other canonical texts, among them abbreviated versions of the Collection in 74 Titles” and Gratian's Pecretum.*” The diversity of collections suggests that Mg was intended to be a kind of legal handbook. An appreciation of Mg as a kind of legal handbook is further supported by an unusual illustration which may be intended as an introduction to the manuscript on fol. iv. In the center of the drawing Augustine, Leo, Gregory, Gelasius, Silvester, Jerome, and Ambrose are presented in a row, framed by legal maxims. Below them two heads look upward, apparently seeking guidance.” ‘This use of maxims as part of the frame to illustrations was not unknown to southern German iconography of the period, and is reminiscent of the illustrations of the Regensburg school of the early eleventh century, specially the Evangeliary of Abbess Uta of Niedermiinster.** The close relationship between the monastery of Priifening near Regensburg and Windberg also 83suggests a potential point of contact, not only through iconography but also in the potential model for the Ranormia in Mg.* ‘The text of the Prologue in Mg seems to be derived from a model related to Mc. While readings frequently correspond, unique variants nevertheless do separate Mg from Mc, thus preventing the Windberg manuscript from being a direct copy.” Unlike Mc, Mg also transmits a complete Prologue. In conclusion, this extension of the Prologues related to Vs reveals further examples of the common form of the text's transmission. As note above, the influence of this cluster of manuscripts will be further examined in the section on the Prologue's Nachleben, where related Prologues have been transmitted with derivative forms of the Panormia. As was the case with the manuscripts centered on Vs and Vk, none of the manuscripts in this group is so different as to suggest a different recension of the Prologue. Once again, these manuscripts indicate only another branch of the same general tradition of the text within the broad outlines of the Panormia's transmission. Additional Common Forms of the Prologue In addition to the examples in the early group of manuscripts related to Ad, collation has revealed a4another significant cluster of manuscripts of German origins. These belong, however, to the common version of the text: $ wa (Klosterneuburg, stiftsbibliothek 638) (London, BL Addit. 18371) (Munich, Clm, 17099) (Munich, Clm, 17100) (Munich, Clm. 6354) (Sankt Paul im Lavanthal 22/1) stiftsbiblicthek, (Vienna, 8NB 2192) Several manuscripts also demonstrate a partial dependence upon this cluster: Fi PL vi (Florence, BN Conv. Soppr. G.1.836) (Paris, BN lat. 4285) (vatican, Vat. lat. 1360) (Vienna, ONB 2177) Except for Wb, which transmits the Prologue as an independent text, the manuscripts in this group are all of the Prologue's transmission with the Panormia. These related clusters were discovered through the initial collation based upon a Munich manuscript, Clm. 28223 (Ma). The trio of Me-Mf-Mh was isolated first. 85Subsequent comparisons revealed further related examples, above all the Prologue transmitted by Sa. Sa orginally belonged to the library of St. Blasien in the Black Forest. It came to its present home in the monastery of St. Paul im Lavanthal in Carinthia following the dissolution of st. Blasien at the beginning of the nineteenth century. In a recent study of the medieval library of st. Blasien, Hubert Houben dated Sa to the early twelfth century. He also suggested a possible French origin for the manuscript, for Sa was probably not copied in St. Blasien's scriptoriun. He noted, however, that the date of its acquisition by the monastery remains uncertain.** St. Blasien played an important role in the spread of the Hirsau reform in southwestern and southern Germany during the first decades of the twelfth century. ‘The monastery rapidly became second only to Hirsau itself in influence.** as Houben notes, an early date of acquisition would make Sa an important witness to the evolution of regional reform, a movement spurred on by study of canon law.”” From the standpoint of the Prologue's textual tradition, an early date and French Schriftheimat would also establish Sa as an important witness in the descent of the text. The Panormia also conclud with 8.134, thus supporting Fournier's analysis of the early tradition, again making Sa a manuscript worthy of close examination. 86Houben notes several texts which accompany the Panormia in Sa. These give additional insight into the manuscript's origins, but they do not strengthen a claim for a possible French origin.** The texts are: fol. Ir: Letter of Gregory VII to Archbishop Sigfried of Maiz concerning the Roman Lenten Synod of 1075 (JL 4931) fol. 1lr-v: The second part of the above text transmits the letter of Gregory VII to Bishop otto of Constance (JL 4933) fol. 84r-aov: the treatise gacerdotes. Immediately following the Panormia Gommonitorium cuiusque episcopi ad The pair of Gregorian letters argue against French origins for the manuscript, though it is conceivable that they could have been added to the Panormia after its acquisition. They belong to a group of sxtravagantes which circulated in Germany. The letters are also not transmitted in any known canonical collection, thus depriving a French scribe of a potential additional formal source.** These letters do suggest, however, a relatively early date of composition for Sa. ‘The anonymous Commonitorium has a long and complex history. The treatise has Frankish origins and was apparently from the outset attributed to Leo IV. There is, however, no compelling evidence to assign its ion exclusively to French manuscripts. The 87descent of the text is too uncertain and complex to make it an indication of a particular place of origin. In short, the Commonitorium in Sa neither confirms nor denies Houben's suggestion of the manuscript's composition in France. The script of si at least in the Prologue, also does not convincingly demonstrate a French origin. The Prologue is written by two hands and the first (fol. 2r- v) is upright and clear, while the remainder of the text (fol. 2v-6r) is written in a script that suggests some chancery influence. In particular, the second hand employs exaggerated ascenders and descenders. Both hands lack any pre-gothic features and appear to date from no later than the middle of the twelfth century. The second hand moreover resembles to some extent the script of one of the two Schiftlarn Panormia (Mf). The first hand also shows sone similarities with several contemporary manuscripts from Bavaria, particularly in the jagged "r" which touches the following letter and in a rounded "a", which is occasionally found in a ligature with an "e" at the apex of its ascender. Thus, while no definite Schriftheimat can be established from the two hands, they appear to point to southern Germany as the hone of sa. ‘The uncertain text-history of Sa makes a conclusive determination of its origins difficult. Nevertheles: the texts transmitted with the Prologue and Panormia, 88along with the scripts, do not appear to support a claim for French origins. The agreement of its Prologue with those of definite southern German origins does, however, confirm Houben's suggestion that sa might be a witness ‘to the importance of canon law in the regional reform of the early twelfth century. of the three Munich Panormia manuscripts related to Sa, the Prologue Me (Clm 17099), corresponds the closest. Me was originally part of the medieval holdings of Sch&ftlarn, an ancient Benedictine foundation in the Isar valley south of Munich. Like many Bavarian cloisters, Sch&ftlarn came under the new Prenonstratensian reform during the first half of the twelfth century under the patronage of Bishop otto of Freising. With the reform came renewed scholarship and the revival of the scriptorium. Numerous book donations from the period attest to the revitalization of the monastic library. In a document from 1160 a certain priest, Aribo of Herbertshausen, mentions the gift of a Panormia. Me i: for it is written in the script of the Schéftlarn scriptorium.”? Instead the second Schaftlarn Panormia, clm 17100 (Mf), may be this text. however, likely not this manuscript, Collation of Me with Sa reveals a number of agreements, both in major, significant variants, and minor variations in orthography and word order. While neither manuscript is a copy of the other, the 89agreements still point to a close relationship. Some of the more signficant readings include: 1-2 incipit (incipiunt Me) collectiones canonum yuonis carnotensis episcopi Me sa 41 habe] inguid add Me sa 42. si--caritate om Me sa 121 deliberandum} post uotum add Me Sa 174 sunt] omnia add Me Sa 183 cogito*] sunt Me Sa 285 populorum--sermonen] popularem promendi sermonem Me Sa 491 et nunc} ethnicus Me sa 513-514 secundam--uestram om Me Sa 555-556 de--romanis) romanis uenerandis Me Sa No major variants separate the Prologues, and only a few readings divide Me and Sa. None permit a clear determination of priority.” wo other Munich Prologues in agreement with Sa and Me appear to share a common model. These manuscripts, Mf (Clm 17100) and Mh (Clm 6354), date from approximately the mid-twelfth century.” Like Me, both transmit the Panormia to 8.136, thus placing them closer to the Sch&ftlarn manuscript than to Sa.”* Mf also belonged to Schaftlarn, while Mh was owned by the cathedral library at Freising. There is no decisive evidence about the medieval homes of these manuscripts, though Mf may have 90been the donation from Aribo of Herbertshausen. Examination of Mf and Mh demonstrates their fundamental agreement with Sa and Me. There are even similar features in the script of Mh and the second hand in Sa, particularly in the long tironian ampersand that extends below the line.™* collation of the Prologue confirms the close relationship of these manuscripts and suggests that, while none is a copy of a known manuscript, the cluster is clearly ultimately descended from a common model. Only occasionally does a signficant deviation from the common text appear, for example at lines 391-401, where Mh appears to be one step further removed from Me-Mf-Sa.”’ other readings indicate that Mh was certainly not the model for this cluster, an argument against the influence of Freising in the transmission of Ivo's collection to schaftlarn during its reform, despite the leading role of Bishop Otto.™* Apart from scattered divergent readings, Mf-Mh follow Me-sa in major and minor variants, and present a relatively congruent cluster of Prologues.** In conclusion, the four manuscripts Me, Mf, Mh, Sa form a well-defined subgroup of Panormia Prologu ‘They are contemporaneous and likely come from southern Germany. While the exact Schriftheimat of Sa remains uncertain, it does appear to be a signficant example of the Prologue, perhaps one of the earliest in the region. The agreement of text not only isolates this cluster of 91manuscripts but also, as was the cai with the early version identified through the Austrian manuscripts Ad- Sz, emphasizes the important role played by the Prologue in southern Germany during the first half of the twelfth century. Like Admont, Bavarian cloisters turned to the Prologue as the new culture of scholasticism accompanied regional reforn.*” The remaining manuscripts in this subgroup generally agr with the readings common to the cluster related to Sa, though not as closely as Me. With the exception of Wb (Vienna, ONB 2177), an independent tran ssion of the Prologue paired with a partial version of the Liber de misericordia et iustitia of Alger of Lidge, these Prologues accompany the Panormia. (Wb will be examined in detail below in the ction on the Prologue's influence.) only the Florentine manuscript, Fi, is not German in origin. ‘The Prologue in Kl (Klosterneuburg, stiftsbibliothek 638) dates from the second half of the twelfth century, and its script betrays a German origin. The manuscript is probably the Panormia cited in the cloister's booklist from the early thirteenth century as "canones yuonis."*' The rubrication and text of the Prologue show a close affinity to v1 (vatican, vat. lat. 1360) and, to a slightly lesser extent, sa.*” Ki is also corrected at several points by a second, contemporary hand.The pair Lg-Wa (London, BL Addit. 18371 and Vienna, ONB 2192) are also German. Ig was acquired by the British Library in 1850 and is dated in the catalogue to the thirteenth century.” Inspection of the manuscript has suggested, however, a dating to the second half of the twelfth century, though a cursive hand of the fourteenth century has also annotated the text at several points. At fol. 1v this later hand records the owner: “Iste liber est monasterii montis sanctii georgii <...>." The place name is almost illegible, but it may be the Cistercian foundation of st. Georgenburg in Tirol.** Wd probably belonged to the cathedral library of st. Peter at Salzburg. The manuscript is a Sammelhandschrift, for its Panormia was originally a separate unit. other texts bound in the manuscript date from the thirteenth century. The Panormia is clearly from the twelfth century and likely came from Salzburg. The readings of Lg and Wd generally follow the variants of manuscripts related to Sa. of the two, Wd corresponds more closely, but both Prologues have readings that separate them both from Sa and each other. At several points Wd has been corrected, perhaps fron a second manuscript related to Vl. Both Ig and Wd are probably ondary copies of hypearchtypes common to the Sa cluster. Additionally, Wd's model was furnished with rubrics.** 93‘The remaining manuscripts of this subgroup (Fi, Pl, Vl, Wb) are more removed from Sa and its related witnesses. Nevertheless, these manuscripts still show some affinity with the Sa cluster. Additionally, each Prologue contains textual peculiarities which give insight into the later evolution, and manipulation, of the text during its influence and reception in the twelfth century. While Wb will be examined in detail later, the other manuscripts can be examined here. Vl (Vatican, vat. lat. 1360), Fi (Florence, BN Conv. Sopp. G.1.836), and Pl (Paris, BN lat. 4285) demonstrate the evolution of the Prologue's tradition in the twelfth century. Collation against the consensus of the Sa group suggests that Fi and Pl were likely derived either from V1 or from a parallel manuscript now lost. Each manuscript will be described in succession in order to follow this branch of the Prologue's descent. V1 was copied in the middle of the mid-twelfth century. The manuscript is of uncertain origins, though it perhaps came from Italy. Several hands have written the Prologue text. An additional contemporary correcting hand has also altered the text at several points. This correcting hand has also added scattered rubrics and glosses.*” In general, the Prologue of V1 follows the readings common to the Sa subgroup. When V1 deviates, it is usually in the added marginal readings, readings that point to the influence of a second manuscript. None of 94these readings are common to other manuscripts in the subgroup, except for wa. some of the veral agreements with Wb and ginal readings correspond also to those in Ma (Munich, Clm 26223). (See below.) ‘The got s and rubrics in Vl distinguish it from other manuscripts in its subgroup, apart from Wd, with does share some rubrics with the Vatican manuscript. All are in the st marginal hand that corrects and augnents the text. The glo are interlinear, and the rubrics are alvays in the margin and indicated by crude parafs. Comparison of the rubrics in V1 with other manuscript groups, including the Sa cluster, indicates a general correspondence between V1 and Wd, and frequent agreement with two Munich manuscripts that belong to the subgroup of glossed Panormia Prologu: 4545). Tt appears that the original text of Vl ) Ma and Md (Munich, Clm corresponds well to the readings of the Sa group-- especially Wd--and that its rubrics have come froma second manuscript related to Wd and, ultimately, to the glossed group of manuscripts, The scattered glosses in Vl also link it with manuscripts outside the Sa cluster, specially Ma.7*” While the shared rubrics and glosses indicate a probable lost link of contamination between Vl and the manuscripts related to Md, a significant marginal addition to V1 suggests in turn its contamination of Fi and Pl. Fi dates from the second half of the twelfth 95century and comes from Vallombror The manuscript is thus one of the few certain italian manuscripts of the Panormia.** Unfortunately the folios containing the Prologue text suffer from water damage and are virtually illegible on film. Nevertheless one can distinguish two contemporary hands--both southern--that copied the text. The poor condition of the Prologue's opening section makes the determination of its potential relationship to other manuscripts difficult. Examination of the body of the text indicates, however, a divergence between its text and rubrics. In general, the text does not follow the significant readings of Vi and the Sa group, and tends instead to follow readings related to the primitive Prologue group discussed above. The rubrics of Fi do, however, agree with v1.™* Nevertheless, they appear to have been added later. The rubrics in Fi only indicate a general agreement with V1, not a clear case of contamination. Pl is of uncertain origins.** The script does, however, exhibit some English features and can be confidently dated to the middle of the twelfth century.** A second hand has also added some marginal inscriptions and glosses to the Prologue text. None are repeated in Vl or Fi.** The uncorrected Prologue text in Pl is close to V1-Fi.”* still, conclusions concerning the relationship of these manuscripts on the basis of their Prologues must be tentative, for there are 96differences in their Panormia.™” A marginal annotation to the Prologue text links V1-Fi-Pl. The annotation appears marginally in V1, but in the text of Fi and Pl. The placement of the interpolation also complicates the transmission. In Vl it appears facing the text at line1soff.; in Fi-P1 it is found following line 230ff., preceding the citation from Leo I Ep. 167 (JK 544). variants between the manuscripts prevent a direct relationship between V1 and Fi-Pl, though Pl is appparently closer to Vl than Fi. An intermediate manuscript, now lost, probably interpolated the gloss and passed it on to Fi-Pl. Perhaps this lost model was also Italian, a hypothesis supported by the marginal hand in Vl, which consistently gives southern abbreviations. The interpolated text in Fi shows more corruption than in Pl, and these errors suggest that the manuscript was perhaps a secondary copy of the original interpolation, with Fi at an intermediate stage. ‘The Decretum Prologue Tradition As noted above in the discussion of the Prologue's printed history in connection with the Decretum, there has been little critical study of the collection's manuscript tradition. Despite the limited number of manuscripts--and perhaps partly because of it--the transmission of the Decretum has remained largely 97unstudied. The remark of Dom Gellé that few exemplars survive in comparison with the Panormia, “pauciora occurrunt decreti exemplaria expresses the principal difficulty confronting any critical study of this large, yet still obscure, canonical collection.” Despite the pioneering work of Paul Fournier-- research augmented to some extent through the subsequent criticiems from Franz Blienetzrieder--the text-history of the Decretum remains unwritten. In addition, the transmission of the collections derived from the Decretum--including the Panormia--has been neglected as well. As discussed above, the recent essay by Peter Landau has attempted to identify and untangle the descent of the Decretum and several of its derivative collections for the first time. His research also provides the essential foundation for the specific analysis of the Prologue's transmission within the Pecretum tradition. Briefly summarized, Landau has classified the extant manuscripts of the Decretum and its derivative forms into several groups. On the basis of agreements in additional chapters and chapter sequences,” he has - divided the tradition into main groups of "French" and “gnglish" manuscripts. The Palatinus manuscript (Vt) and the Colbertinus manuscript (Pc) stand somewhat outside these clusters. Finally, the chief group of abbreviated versions-~excepting the Panormia--appears closest to the 98English group.”* According to Landau, the manuscripts--(Paris BN lat. 14315) and Vatican, Vat. lat. 1357)--form a distinct manuscript pair. (The former is designated Pd in the conspectus siglorum of this edition, the Vatican manuscript, Vd.) He concludes that they represent an early stage in the Decretum's transmission.*” If this is true, then Fronteau's choce of Pd for his marginal readings was fortunate. Unfortunately, as we have noted above, his use of this manuscript was inconsistent. Pd came to St. Victor in Paris at an unknown date. ‘The hand of the text is clearly French and dates from the first half of the twelfth century.”” vd also appears to be of French provenance and likewise dates from the opening decades of the twelfth century.” In his analysis of chapter sequences and additional chapters, Landau demonstrates the congruence of these msnuscripts. He notes, however, that neither could be the direct model of the other, for vd provides enough variants against Pd to preclude a direct relationship. He suggests instead that both manuscripts are derived from a lost model similar to Pd.”* A pair of manuscripts form the "English" group: Cambridge Corpus Christi College 19 (ca) and London, BL Royal 11 D 7 (La). The Royal manuscript is written in a beautiful, clear English hand of the first half of the twelfth century. As noted above, it originally belonged 99to Lincoln cathedral library.” The manuscript has been in London since the dissolution of the cathedral library in the sixteenth century.” The Cambridge manuscript is also of English provenance and contains as well a Possession mark from Canterbury cathedral on fol. ir below the Prologue. A list of Popes written in an English hand of the first half of the twelfth century concludes with Honorius II (1124-1130), thus providing a kerminus post quem for ca.7”* Landau's analysis of the English group of manuscripts reveals their internal correspondance and their basic agreement with the French group. The independence of Ca-Id is indicated both by chapter sequences and omitted chapters unique to this pair. Landau further suggests that the source of the English manuscripts may have originally been an exemplar containing many dubletts that were retained in Pd-va, but omitted in Ca-Id. This would indicate a more advanced (fortgeschrittene) stage in the English pair.”” Landau has been able to connect the remaining Recretum manuscripts to Pd-Va and Ca-Ld with varying degre of precision. The Colbertinus manuscript (Paris BN lat. 3874, Pc) is of French origins and can be dated to the first half of the twelfth century. According to Landau, Pe is dependent upon neither manuscript pair directly.” Pc concludes with Book 16 of the Decretum, a feature that characterizes not only the abridged 100versions of the collections, but also part B of the Tripartita, and the Panormia, for none of these contain material found in this book.” Landau's collation of the chapter sequences thus places Pc tentatively in a middle stage of redaction between the French and English pairs, though it may be somewhat closer to Pd than to either of the English manuscripts.” As noted above in the discussion of rubrication in the printed Decretum tradition, the Palatinus manuscript (vt) deviates noticeably from the other witnesses. Landau considers this manuscript a consciously reworked Decretum, which ends at 6.432 because the scribe was interested only in the texts pertaining to regular clergy.%* He tentatively dates vt as not later than the mid-twelfth century, basing this largely on a assumption that Gratian's Decretum would have already displaced Ivo's collection after that time.” He considers vt an independent witness belonging to neither group of manuscripts. The final Decretum examined by Landau also transmits a partial version of the collection. The manuscript, Siguenza, Cathedral library 61, transmits only Books 9-17, but their text does basically agree with the common version found in all manuscripts apart from Vt. There is also close agreement with the Molinaeus edition. The mass of additional chapters in the Siguenza manuscript has suggested an earlier stage 102of redaction to Landau, a stage closer to the original form of the collection.”* It thus appears that this witness is not dependent upon any of the other extant manuscripts. The Siguenza manuscript also does not transmit the Prologue. The Siguenza manuscript is not alone in its commission of the Prologue. The Decretum contained in Lincoln, Cathedral library 193 also fails to transmit the text. Landau did not examine this manuscript, though Paul Fournier had called attention to it in his study of English manuscripts of pre-Gratian canonical collections.” The text of the Decretum is not complete, for sizeable ommissions occur throughout the collection.” A brief examination of chapter sequences has failed to establish a connection between the Lincoln januscript and the groupings given by Landau. The lack of extant manuscripts indicates the apparent failure of the Decretum to influence directly the development of pre-Gratian canon law. The chief contribution of the collection is undoubtedly its role as a formal source for several derivative collections, not only the Panormia but also other, less well-known dependent compilations.*” The largest group of these dependent, abridged versions centers on We (Vienna, ONB 2196), a manuscript first analyzed by Theiner in 1638. Through his examination of additional chapters, Landau has been able to demonstrate a connection between We and 102the English pair, though this relationship is not a direct dependence upon either Ca or Ld. The remaining derivative compilations studied by Landau are Paris, Arsenal 713 (Pr) and Paris, BN lat. 14809 (Px). Both originally belonged to the library of st. victor in Paris, though neither is dependent upon the other.” Landau considers both to be related to the Victorinus Decretum, with Px perhaps a direct copy. These manuscripts will be discussed more fully below. To sum up: Landau is the first to have attempted a critical analysis of the Decretum tradition. As noted above, his research focused primarily upon the analysis and collation of chapter sequences and additional chapters. It now remains to been en whether analysis of the Prologue will support or modify these conclusions. ‘The Prologue in the Decretum Manuscripts It has already been observed that the rubrication of Vd and Vt separate them somewhat from the other Decretum. While they agree directly only twice, vd-' present conflicting rubrics three times. The remaining rubrics appear in blocks unique to each manuscript.** Apart from occasional textual divisions through parafs or rubricated initials--particularly within the series ‘the quotations from Augustine, Cyril of Alexandria, and Gregory the Great--the remaining Decretum Prologues 103present an undivided text. The rubrication of their Prologues thus suggests a slightly closer relationship between Vd-Vt than indicated by Landau. Nevertheless, the models for this manuscript pair, while perhaps related, are obviously separate. Despite the lack of thematic rubrication in the majority of the Decretum Prologues, the simple textual divisions are common to all the manuscripts. Not only do the Prologues attached to the Decretum transmit these divisions, but also those accompanying the abbreviated compilation of the We group. The consistency of these divisions also illustrates the limits of the Decretum's transmission. The absence of thematic rubrics in the abbreviated compilation also suggests that these manuscripts were not derived from an exemplar related to the French pair, thus supporting Landau's conclusions that ‘the abbreviated version may have cone from a model closer to the English group. Collation of the Prologue text has generally supported Landau's classification of the manuscripts. There are no radically divergent redactions of the text. ‘The manuscripts are grouped primarily through minor variants, whose collective weight tends to separate the major groups. Collation has confirmed Landau's classification of the French group and its related manuscripts. A few variants reflect both the commonality and the divergence 104between Pd-vd, as well as the relative agreement with Pc and Vt. Some of the more important readings include: 12 instruendos (Pt) Vd Ca We Ld Ha] instituendos Pa Pc vt 88 = suam om. Pa Pc va 214 astu (Pt) Pd Vd Pc Ca] actu Vt Ld We Ha The lack of striking variants among the manuscripts points to the general agreement of the text among the Recketum Prologues. Still, the readings above do show a specific agreement between Pd-Vd, though not without exceptions. vd appears to be related to Pd, though Perhaps at least one step removed. Pc tends to agree more closely with the "French" group, while vt frequently goes its own way. Vt does appear related to Pd-vd, though collation of the text has not absolutely confirmed the congruence with Vd suggested by comparison of rubrics. Pc may also be generally related to the “French” group, though collation of its Prologue has not replaced the label of a middle stage of redaction between Pd-Vd and Ca-Ld assigned it by Landau.” Collation of the Prologue has also supported Landau's grouping of Ca and Ld. The two disagree only once, a reading readily explainable as a simple copying error. The Royal Decretum, however, does omit the opening phrase of “exceptiones-epistolis," an omission 105not found in the Cambridge manuscript. Thus, despite ‘their frequent agreement, ca and Ld are clearly separate copies from a common parent manuscript.”” The similarity of their texts to Pd-vd also confirms once more the essential agreement of the Prologue in the two main groups. Neither Prologue exhibits the "progressive" characteristics described by Landau in the collection itself. Collation of the Prologue transzitted with manuscripts from the abridged group has also demonstrated their separate status within the tradition and their occasional agreement with Ca~Ld. Some of the more significant variants include: 12 instruendos Ha We Ca Ld Vd] instituendos Pd 88 © suam om Pd 216 astu] actu Ha We La vt Other readings--among them a major omission of text-- show both the congruence and disagreement of Ha-We 307 apostolicis] uiris add Ha We 375 assumerentur) reciperentur Ha We 427 diiudicatus] est add Ha 552-584 ne-debeat om Ha While We transmits the entire Prologue, the Harleian 106nuscript omits approximately the final one-fourth of the text. The number of variants transmitted by We alone, however, suggests the indpendence of each manuscript from the other, rather than a dependence of Ha on We. ‘The dependent compilation transmitted by Pr cannot be conclusively linked to any of the extant manuscripts solely on the basis of its Prologue. The manuscript provides not merely an abbreviated Decretum, but instead a derivative collection based not only on the Decretum but also on other collections, among them the Panormia.** collation of the Prologue has revealed some striking agreements with an intermediate form of the Prologue transmitted with the Panormia.”” Another example of an abridged Decretum is provided by Leipzig, UB 955 (Lz). The hand of the manuscript is early--clearly the first half of the twelfth century-- and the Schriftheimat German.” once again, Theiner was the first to discuss this manuscript, and he linked it to the other examples of the abridged Decretun, especially the Vienna manuscript.’ Apart from its abridgment of the Decretum, Lz also transmits other texts of canonical interest, among them an excerpt from the Liber de excommunicatis vitandis of Bernold of Constance. other contemporary manuscripts transmit this excerpt in various forms, and its contents--a discussion of penance and dispensation--provide interesting 107supplements to the Prologue.** Collation of the Prologue in Lz supports Theiner's association of the manuscript with We. Although isolated variants separate Lz from We, many common readings point to their frequent, sometimes unique, agreement: 1-2 prefatio yuonis carnotensis episcopi in collectionibus ecclesiasticarum regularum Lz We 141-142 in-erit] minimus uocabitur in regno celorum Lz we 375 assumerentur] recipiantur Lz We 517 sanctorum) patrum add Lz 580 si-continent) hoc leges seculi si continent tr Lz We Lz's agreement with We is obvious and suggests as well the possible origins of the Decretum abridgment in a German exemplar.’ Its early date also points to the immediate influence of the Decretum in the empire during the opening decades of the twelfth century. Unlike Lz, it is more difficult to link Px with the other Prologues in the Decretum tradition. Landau classifies this manuscript as an abbreviation (Kurzform) derived from Pd. He bases this association, as always, on a comparison of chapters and chapter sequences.” Because the Prologue is only given in a very fraguentary form, it is difficult to evaluate Landau's conclusions on this basis. What is retained does agree with Pd.°” 108Neither Landau's analysis nor this study of the Prologue can show conclusively which of the extant manuscripts contains the earliest form of the Decretun. None of the surviving manuscripts can be directly linked to another as a copy; none give convincing codicological evidence of a clearly earlier witness. All the manuscripts are written in hands of the first half of the twelfth century. This lack of discriminating evidence is also compounded by the meager transmission of the text. with the Decretum or the Prologue found with it, there can be no scientific selection of the “best" manuscript. When confronted by the difficulties of the Decretum Prologue, the modern editor still cannot improve decisively upon Fronteau's decision to turn to the Victorinus manuscript for analysis of the tradition. Intermediate Forms of the Text A number of manuscripts can also be identified which appear to stand between the primitive version of the Panormia Prologue lacking tha transitional conclusion and the common form represented by the majority of the manuscripts, including those transmitting the text with the Decretum. It would be an exaggeration to call these manuscripts a coherent class; ather they represent a large cluster of Prologues that- 109vwhile textually more or less similar to the common version of the text--share some distinctive features without coalescing into a distinctive version. From this large group of manuscripts, two have been chosen for inclusion among those utilized for the edition: vo (vat. Ottoboniani lat. 164) and vr (Vat. Reg. lat. 340). Vo contains 150 folios and can be dated to the econd half of the twelfth century.*° It passed from the collection of Queen Christina of Sweden to the Vatican library in the seventeenth century. The Prologue and Panormia were written by a single German scribe. The Prologue appears on fol. <1>v-8v. Vo carries an unusual variant form of the typical title for the Prologue characteristic of the common version of the text. This variant is shared with at least one other manuscript, Paris, BN lat. 3871.°° It also transmits some of the rubrics found with the common version and subsequently added post correctioném to the text of Sz. Finally, the Prologue contains the transitional conclusion, however this is not only preceded by an "Explicit prologus" but also is rubricated as if the scribe wished the reader to know that this section did not belong to the Prologue proper.* It was this unusual rubrication that initially suggested that the transitional conclusion might be an addition to an earlier version of the text. Vr also belonged to the bequest of Queen Christina.°” It is a composite manuscript of 168 folios, 110with the Panormia forming the first section on fol. 1r- 158v. The section is of uncertain origins, though the script and decoration appear to be French, and dated no later than the middle to second half of the twelfth century. The Prologue is found on fol. ir-8v, written by the single scribe. Like Vo, the text in vr transmits several of the common rubrics such as "De ammonicione" and "De indulgencia." There are no glosses or marginalia. A small number of readings common to Vo and vr demonstrate their relative affinity. Several are shared with manuscripts transmitting the primitive version of the Panormia Prologue,” while others diverge.’ This mixture suggests the intermediate state of the Prologue in manuscripts related to Vo-Vr. Thus, while the text of Vo and vr does not dramatically differ from the version commonly found with the Panormia Prologue, it nevertheless appears that these twin Vatican manuscripts point the way to a broad group of related manuscripts that stand somewhat apart from the typical version of the text.°* It is for this reason that they were chosen for inclusion in the apparatus criticus of the edition. Conclusion It is now ti to sum up the main features of the Prologue's textual tradition. The sheer number of extant aamanuscripts challenges any attempt to construe the descent of the text. Nevertheless, the evidence gathered from the manuscripts examined for this edition does suggest that the text passed through three distinct phases: an initial version as a treatise, in a form similar to the one presented by Ly; a shorter version that initially introduced the Panormia; the common, valgate version, augmented with a transitional conclusion introducing the capitulatio to the Panormia. The text of the following edition does not radically differ from the version encountered in PL 161. As noted above in the discussion of the Prologue's printed history with the Ivonian collections, Molinaeus' election of the Victorinus Decretum ensured a relatively good text of the Prologue. The merit of this new edition lies, however, as much in the apparatus eriticus of variants as in the text itself. The variety of variant readings mirrors the extent of the wide textual tradition. As this Prolegomena has attempted to illustrate, the readings below the contribute as much to the story of Ivo's "marvelous introduction" to the canons as the text itself, a compelling witness to influential, "living text" that profoundly shaped the course of twelfth-century thought. 12The edition follows the editorial guidelines outlined by Stephan Kuttner for use in editing legal texts." The readings of Pt (Paris, BN lat. 10742) have been consistently followed in order to avoid presenting a mixed recension. Where Pt has failed to provide the most logical reading, I have attempted to supply a reading from a related manuscript within the primitive group, for example Sz. Only a few instances remain where I have departed from this group, and these have been noted in the apparatus criticus, with the reading of Pt indicated in boldface. In order to present the most representative version of the text, the transitional conclusion found in the common tradition has been retained and is designated by uncini. I have not normalized the orthography of Pt. The genitive ending “e" for feminine nouns has not been expanded to "ae". I have limited my intervention in the text to the capitalization of proper names and place names, The creation of the apparatus criticus and apparatus fontium was aided by a new editing program "Norm" developed by Professor Norman Zacour. I wish to take this opportunity to thank Professor Zacour for allowing me to utilize this novel program for ny edition. Finally it should be noted that the apparatus fontium attempts, where possible, to indicate the formal 113source of Ivo's citation. Where this occurs, this decision has been based on careful consideration of the possible formal source. These findings are discussed below in the chapter on the sources. 114Edition: Conspectus siglorum La London, BL Arundel 252 ly Lidge, UB 230 a Munich, Clm 28223 > Munich, Clm 11316 Pa Paris, BN lat. 14315 Pt Paris, BN lat. 10742 sa Sankt Paul im Lavantthal, Stiftsbibl. cod. 22/1 Salzburg, Archabtei St. Peter, stiftsbibl. a. viii. 15 vo vatican, Ottob. lat. 164 ve vatican, Reg. lat. 340 ve Vatican, Archiv. San Pietro G 19 ve Vatican, Pal. lat. 587 1151. For discussion of the editor's responsibility to recover the full extent of a manuscript tradition, see Horst Fuhrmann, "Die Sorge um den rechten Text," in Geschichte Heute. Positionen. Tendenzen, und Problemen, ed. Gerhard Schulz (G&ttingen 1973) 9-23, which first appeared in DA 25 (1969) 1-16. 2. For an excellent discussion of the divergent schools of editorial theory, see the essay by Leonard Boyle, "optimist and Recensionist. Common Errors or Common Variations?" in Latin Script and Letters. Festschrift presented to Ludwig Bieler on the Occasion of his 70th Birthday, ed. John K. O'Meara and Bernd Naumann (Leiden 1976) 264-74. Boyle argues persuasively for the traditional methods of textual criticism based on a careful analysis and collation of the manuscript tradition. While he acknowledges the arguments of editors who elect to follow a single manuscript against the presumption of a single, critical, "true" edition based upon "errors", Boyle still maintains the validity and necessity of editions produced by exam‘natio, eliminatic, recensioc. 3. See the end of the Prolegomena for the stemma sodicum. 4. For a brief review of Brandt's career in Basel, see Guido Kisch, Die Anfinge der juristischen Fakultit der 117Universitat Basel (1459-1519), (Studien zur Geschichte der Wissenschaft 15: Basel 1962) 77-81. His comments are summarized in his short essay Die Universitit Basel und das rémische Recht im flinfzehnten Jahrhundert, (Ius romanum medii aevi 5.12: Milan 1974) 6. In neither instance does Kisch discuss Brandt's edition. See also Roderich Stinzing, Geschichte der populiren Literatur des xomisch-kanonischen Rechts, (Leipzig 1867, rp. 1959) 459. In his introductory letter, Brandt reassures his audience that Ivo's collection is indeed a useful text: "Non arbitereris velim ab ivone collecta decreta nusquam alibi comperiri quippe que magis pro parte in decretorum gratiani compilatione hodie inserte reperiunt quemadmodun suis locis annotatum remissumque contueri licet." For recent discussion of Brandt's motives behind his edition, see the essay by Peter Landau, "Die Rubriken und Inskriptionen von Ivos Panormie. Die Ausgabe Sebastian Brants im Vergleich zur Lowener Edition des Melchior de Vosmedian und der Ausgabe von Migne," BMCL NS. 12 (1982) 31-49 at 39. Some of the contemporary confusion, or even lack of interest, in early canonical texts can be seen in the fate of a Panormia which belonged to the Carthusians of Utrecht in the early fifteenth century, now Utrecht, UB 621. The manuscript had been a gift from a certain Herbernus de Donk, a canon of the Marienkirche. It apparently survived because the monks could not subsequently sell it! For a description of the manuscript, 118the Cataloqus codicum manuscriptorum bibliothecae universitatis (Utrecht 1887) 167 and, especially, J.P. Gumbert, Die Utrechter Kartiuser und ihre Blicher im frilhen 15. Jahrhundert (Leiden 1974) 125, 303-304. 5. "Ego vero pridem librum quemdam decretorum venerabilis ivonis episcopi carnotensis antea paucis nostri seculi hominibus perspectum reperissem..." 6. Melchior Vosmedian, "A christiano lectori," PL 161. 1039-40: “Habes igitur, christiane lector, ivonem nostrum cum theologis juris peritissimum, et cum iure consultis theologum gravissimum, et variae lectionis virum, non multilum, non mancum, non mendis redundantem, non corruptum ut antea; sed perfectum, integrum, verum et emendatum, nec nudum ut antea, sed multis iam indicibus et annotatiunculis tanquam vestibus ornatum." For a brief biography of Vosmedian, see Henri Wagon, "L'université de Louvain et les éditions de textes et anciens commentaires de droit canonique," in Congraés de droit canonique médiévale (Bibliotheque de la revue d'histoire ecclesiastique, fasc. 33: Louvain and Brussels 1958) 13- 24 at 19 n. 18. Vosmedian enjoyed the patronage of Phillip II in his later career and was appointed Bishop of Guadix in spain in 1560, a position he later renounced in 1574. 7. See note 4 above. Landau has significantly extended the work begun by Jacqueline Rambaud-Buhot in her brief 119study "Les sommaires de la Panormie et l'edition de Melchior de Vosmedian," Traditio 23 (1967) 534-36. Rambaud-Buhot was the first modern scholar to call into question the accepted view of the direct transmission of many Panormia rubrics into Gratian. For an elaboration of her discussion, see Landau, n. 4 above, 32. See also the y by Charles Munier, "Pour une 6dition de la Panormie d'Ive de Chartres," Révue di sciences religieuses 44 (1970) 210-29, who focusses on the rubrics of a single manuscript, Strasbourg, UB 90. Munier's analysis of the Prologue to this Panormia is also of interest in the reconstruction of the text's descent, on which see below. Additional discussion of the Panormia's rubrics can be found in the recent note by Gérard Fransen, "La tradition manuscrite de la Panormie d'Ives de Chartres," BMCL NS 17 (1987) 91-95. Fransen discusses the apparent accretion of copyists’ rubrics in the evolution of the Panormia, and also briefly examines two Munich manuscripts, Clm 6354 and 28223. For analysis of selected sections in the Panormia manuscripts examined for this present study, see Appendix B. 8. Landau, n.4 above, 35 9. Ibid., 34. Landau is emphatic in his criticism of the Migne edition: "Man muss Bendenken haben, den Migne- Text Uberhaupt als Nachdruck zu bezeichnenj es ist eher 120der Versuch einer Neuedition nach einem fir das 19. Jahrhundert anachronistischen Masstab." 10. Tbid. Landau examined seven out of the nine Panormia manuscripts in the Bayerische Staatsbiblicthek. Through this analysis, he made the first extensive critical study of the Panormia tradition since the work of Fournier and Bliemetzrieder, on which see below. The study also joins the monograph of Bliemetzrieder as the only significant study of non-French manuscripts of an Ivonian collection. 1, Ibid. 22. Brant also provides rubricated divisions throughout. the text at the beginning of each citation. on these rubrics, see below in the discussion of the manuscript tradition. 13. These rubrics precede the texts on episcopal translation and the restoration of deposed bishops, both examples of dispensation illustrating consideration of necessity and context. Almost all manuscripts are divided at these places, either through a marginal or textual rubric, or with capital letters or parafs. Again, see below for additional discussion. 24. None of the inscriptions to Biblical citations are found in the manuscripts, save for occasional occasional marginal notes such as "apostolus." The inscriptions have 122all been added by Brant. As for the patristic citations, the manuscripts only rarely give inscriptions, for example in the Berlin manuscript of transmitting the Prologue with Tripartita on fol. 24ra~ marginal which gives a marginal inscription on fol. 27ra Ivo vb, which provides a to the letter from Cyril of Alexandria: "Cirillius." For more on this manuscript, see below in the discussion of the Prologue's transmission with Ivonian-derivative collections in the chapter on legal Nachleben. There is also one inscription found only a few manuscripts and not at all in the printed versions, where Ivo begins his @iscussion of the distinction between precept and prohibition. While rubrication is fairly common here in the tradition, three manuscripts added an additional inscription “augustinus de libro mendacio" (London, BL Addit. 18371, Paris, BN lat. 3866, and Vatican, Vat. lat. 1360), all of German origins. In each case, the inscription is in the rubricator's hand. The reference is most likely to the passage in the De mendacio where Augustine discusses Paul's circumcision of Timothy as an example of precept, not of deception (simulatio). on the importance of this text in the background to the glossed Prologues, see the chapter on extra-legal Nachleben. 15. See the introductory printed in PL 161.1037-38: ",..dllum quaerere per biblicthecas, cum publicas tum privatas minime destiti; sed quem quaesitum invenire non 122potui, casu reperi, nec unum exemplar, sed duo: alterum a sexaginta fere annis impressum, alterum vero in pergamena charta vetustissimis characteribus manuscriptum." For more on Vosmedian's apparent search of the London libraries, see Landau, n. 4 above, 31-2 and 5. 16. Epistola a christiano lectori, PL 161.1039-40: "Ad haec centum summaria, quae diserabuntur adjeci; et capitum distinctiones toto opere apposui: praeter alia multa quae ipsae restitui et emendavi." See also Landau, n.4 above, 35. 17. Brant, Epistola dedicatoria: “Dividit autem Ivo noster opus suum in octo partes quas singulas cum suis titulis quia mox inferius annotatas invenies: hic recensere pretermitto, ne actum agere videar." 18. A brief note at the conclusion of the edition (fol. 178r in the copy in the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek) gives the date of printing and the pre: "Reverendi peritissinque iuris consulti ivonis pannormie charnotensis episcopi commendatissimi de varia scripturarum distinctione (divina opitulante gratia) expensis Michaelis Furter elaborata anno fructiferi incarnationis MccccxcIXx mensis martii die sexta feliciter explicuit.” 19. These readings include: 178 precedere] ipsa rigoris 123disciplina add B Wg; 247 compassione} hoc peccatum add B Md Wg; 262 rigat] fundende sunt preces add B Ma Mdpe V: 382 sequantur] et deum recte colant add B Le Mc Vg Vx; For a discussion of the group of glossed Panormia Prologues, again see below in the chapter on extra-legal Nachleben. 20. See George F. Warner and Julius P. Gilson, Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Old Roval and King's Collections in the British Museum 2 vols. (London 1921) 1.357-58. Leland's manuscript list of the northern manuscripts--among them the Royal Decretum--is preserved in London, BL Royal Ms. App. 69, fol. ir. (See also below for further discussion of this Decretum manuscript.) For a concise examination of the dissolution, including Leland's travels, see C. E. Wright, "The Dispersal of the Libraries in the Sixteenth Century," in The English Library before 1700, ed. Francis Wormald and C.E. Wright (London 1958) 148-75 especially at 161-62 for discussion of Leland's list of manuscripts. 21, See the discussion below in the section of the chapter on extra-legal Nachleben that treats the independent transmission of the Prologue as a treatise. 22. For a recent survey of the Decretum's printed history and its manuscript tradition, see Peter Landau, "Das Dekret des Ivo von Chartres. Die handschriftliche 124Uberlieferung im Vergleich zum Text in den Editionen des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts," ZRG KA 70 (1985) 1-44. Like his study of the Panormia, this monograph provides the first modern analysis of the text's descent. As Landau notes (pp. 3-4), the Decretum was not considered authentic until the appearance of the Molinaeus edition and was generally confused with the derivative Collection in Ten Parts. For an example of this confusion, see Johannes Trithemius, De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis (Frankfurt 1601): "Scripsit (Ivo)...ex canonibus sanctorum compendiosum Decretum, quo ante Gratiani tempora utebantur iuristae, quod praenotavit panormiam li. 10." 23. Ibid., 3-4. See also Antonio Augustinus, De quibusdam yeteribus canonum ecclesiasticorum collectoribus judicum ac_censura (Rome 1611) c. 30, where he discusses the Decretum in light of the Molinaeus edition. 24. Gérard Fransen was apparently the first to call attention to the discrepancy between the introduction printed by Migne and the "authentic" version of the 1561 edition. See the brief remarks in his review of Fuhrmann's Einfluss und __Verbreitung _der _Pseudo- Isideriechen Falschungen, RHE 70 (1974) 786. The comments are repeated without elaboration in his article “wanuscrits des collections canoniques," BMCL ns. 6 (1976) 12567-71 at 70. Landau repeats these observations without additional comment, n. 22 above, 7. 25. In a letter of November 6, 1986, Professor Landau writes that the exemplar containing the “later version" 4s found in the British Library and the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris, while the presumed original" version is available at Regensburg and Louvain. My own examination of both exemplars available in Munich--in the Bayerische Staatsbiblicthek and the library of the Monumenta Germaniae Historica--show that they are of the latter form. Watermark analysis has also provided some information about the origins of the copy in the possession of the Monumenta. The watermark depicts a walking pilgrim with staff in hand, a figure which corresponds to no. 7576 in Charles Moise, Les filigranes. Dictionnaire historique des marques du papier dés leurs apparition vers 1282 jusqu'en 1600 4 vols. (Paper Publications Society: Paris 1968) no. 7576. The mark originated in Udine towards 1593 and spread with variations throughout Italy. The watermark is also described by Aurelio Zonghi, Zonghi's Watermarks., ed. Aurelio Zonghi, et al. (Monumenta chartae papyraceae historiam illustrantia 3: Hilversum 1953) 48, no. 1707 and pl. 122. A hand of the seventeenth century has added some notes on the title page: "lovigno, citta e studio famossim< > in barbanta. lib, olim R.P. mag. 126Angelici jlappini de Bononia." The copy was apparently printed under license in Italy und belonged to a Bolognese master. I have been unable to identify him. Neverthele: the Italian provenance of this exemplar does provide a good example of the wider dissemination of the second, “yulgate," version of the Molinaeus preface. I have been recently informed by Professor Landau that a third version now has come to light in the copy of the Molinaeus edition at the Institute of Medieval Canon Law at Berkeley. 26. Molinaeus, Epistola dedicatoria: "Quod vero ad me pertinet, quantum laboris in editione exhauserim, ex collatione codicis tui manuscripti, cum eo quem nunc emittimus, optine scire poteris. Equidem ut Regii codicis tui hiatus, ac lacunas omittam, plerumque integri versus vel inducti erant, vel praeteriti, denique argumenta librorum deerant, quas difficultates fateor, citra alterius exemplaris, (dein ad nos quod Colonia transmissum est) opem, nunquam licuisset superare." See also, Landau, n. 22 above, 7. 27. For a brief biography of Molinaeus, see the entry by G. Lepointe, DDC 5.67-70. The chief literary source for Molinaeus' career at Louvain is the biography by J.N. Paquot, Menoires pour servir a l'histoire littéraire des dix-sept provinces des Pays-Bas de 1a principaute de Ligce et de quelques contrees voisines 18 vols. (Louvain 1769) 17.405-12. Molinaeus's initial conflict was with a fellow 127doctor of laws, Ramus, in opposition to a royal plan to create new bishops in the region and to assign certain abbeys to them. Molinaeus' later public criticism of the bishops who had supported the royal plan ended his career and apparently brought on a mental collapse. According to Paquot, Molinaeus died in confinement, a victim of self-imposed starvation. For a study of the law faculty at Louvain in the second half of the sixteenth century-- including Molinaeus--see Henri Wagon, "Les lecons ad Decretum Gratiani a la faculte de droit canonique de l'ancienne universite de Louvain (1426-1797) ," SG 3 (1955) 569-98 at 579-1 0. 28. In addition to occasional personal references to Fresnda, a reference to the printer Gravius is also not repeated in the second preface: "Quod vero etiam elegantissimis et maiusculis literarum formis ut Bartholomaeo Gravio excuderetur curaveri: sane est quod tibi gratias immortales agat etiam respublica, cui tantun bond quod tibi uni habere licuit, non invideris." The absence of this comment, among others, provides strong circumstantial evidence that the second preface, composed perhaps after 1570, attempts to disassociate the earlier sponsors of the edition from Molinaeus. 29. In his initial description of the Decretum's origins and Ivo's career, Molinaeus draws an implicit parallel 128between the turmoil of Ivo's day and the conflicts of his own time: “Opus sane cum laboranti et afflictae ecclesiae dei, plurimum serviens: tum omnibus sacrarum, canonicarumve rerum stodiosis cumprimis necessarium." In another passage, Molinaeus describes the ascendancy of the Panormia over the Decretum and praises Fresneda for his recovery of the authentic Decretum. The difference between the two versions of the preface shows the derivative nature of the second preface, though Fresneda is still praised, albeit in different words. The common version explain the Panormia more fully than the earlier version, a good indication of an augmented, later text. In both versions Fresneda is praised, but his role in the "discovery" of the Decretum is more explicit in the first preface. The language of the second version is more fulsome and vague. 30. ‘The passage appears only in the original version: “Quantopere porro Ivo noster ordini studuerit, in Praesenti opere consarciendo, ipse de se locupletisimus est testis, dum initio proloquii ait. ‘A fundamento itaque Christiane religionis id est fide inchoantes, sic ea quae ad sacramenta ecclesiastica, sic ea quae ad instituendos vel corrigendos mores, sic ea quae ad quaeque negotia discutienda vel difinienda pertinent, sub generalibus titulis distincta congessimus, ut non fit quaerenti 129necesse totum volumen evolvere, sed tantum titulum generalem suae quaestioni congruentem notare, et ei subiecta capitula, sine interpellatione transcurrere.' Hactenus Ivo noster, qui dici non potest, quantum hac facillima elegantissimaque methodo sua, omnes huiusce artis cultores inverit." 31. See Landau, n. 22 above, 8-11. 32. Ibid., 16, 27-8. 33, Ibid., 27-28. It has been recently suggested that the Cologne manuscript may have followed the route to England taken by a manuscript of the Collectio Lanfranci brought by Petrus Crabbe for the second edition of his Gonsilia (1551) on which see Detlev Jasper's review of Landau's article in DA 41 (1985) 587-88. The chaotic state of the English religious houses during the dissolution makes this hypothesis attractive, if not certain. 34. Ibid. The discovery of the Vienna Decretum manuscript--assuming it in fact existed at one point-- cited by Theiner would help to clear up the manuscript tradition. It is, however, likely that this manuscript was the invention of Theiner. In his essay “Uber Ivo's vermeintliches Dekret," (Vienna 1832) 46-47, Theiner mentions a Decretun in Vienna but fails to give a signature or library. As Landau notes, Fournier first 130accepted, then rejected, the existence of this manuscript. The title given the manuscript by August Theiner, in his Disquisitiones criticae in _praecipuas _canonum _et decretalium collectiones (Rome 1836) appears at the beginning of the Royal Decretum: "Incipit prologus domini Ivonis Carnotensis episcopi ante collectionem ecclesiasticarum regularun de conventientia et @ispensatione eorundem." His argument that the “ante” represents the reluctance of the medieval librarian to ascribe the work to Ivo is specious, for it could have been written for either collection or, for that matter, for neither in particular. See also Franz Bliemetzrieder, Zu_den Schriften Ives von Chartres (+1116). Ein Literargeschichtliche Beitrag, (SB Vienna 182 (1915): vienna 1917) 76-77, who also searched in vain for the Vienna manuscript. 35. Ibid., 18. For a brief description of these manuscripts, see also pp. 9-10 and, for the Royal manuscript, the description by Warner, n. 22 above. Both manuscripts were written in England, and it is very unlikely that either left its cathedral library before acquisition by the Crown. They must be excluded, as potential direct models for Molinaeus. See also below, for a detailed discussion of these manuscripts and their Prologues. 13136. Ibid., 30, n. The reading “venerabilis" at 1.63 agrees with the manuscripts. 37. ‘The marginal readings in the Prologue include: Edition Variant corpus opus ceciderit exciderit damnabili damnpnabili apostolicis viris add in mara. Fronteau later incorporated these readings without comment. into his edition. They then passed into the Migne edition. For some examples of Panormia Prologues that transmit some of these variants, see the apparatus criticus entries for La and Ma. 38. Collation of the Molinaeus Prologue with the manuscripts has revealed a fundamental agreement, with only two variant readings without apparent foundation in the manuscript tradition of the Decretum. In both cases, “gratiam" for “gloria” and “plurima" for "plura," the difference is easily attibuted to misreading the text. 39. See Landau, n. 22 above, 11-2 for a brief description of the Palatine Decretum. The Prologue is partially 132damaged and its conclusion is unreadable on microfilm. I wish therefore to thank Dr. Claudia Martl (Munich) for examining the: folia for me. For further discussion of ‘the Prologue in this manuscript, see below. 40. bia. 41, Ibid., 18-23. In most places, the divisions in the Victorinus manuscript appear to have been added later, though still in the twelfth century. There are no true rubrics, only occasional parafs of an early form. These have generally squeezed into the text before citations. 42, Ibid., 25: "Der Codex Palatinus ist wegen der Nahe seiner Kapitelfolge zur ordnung der ‘Edition bemerkenswert."" 43. Ibid., 31, for a brief discussion of Molinaeus' creations among the rubrics of the text. Molinaeus sometimes composed new rubrics, for example 2.1-10, or replaced existing ones, as at 2.13. Still, the extent and quality of his creative activity could only be judged from the perspective of a more complete manuscript base, since ‘the Cologne and Regius manuscripts are apparently lost. Unlike Vosmedian's additions to the Brant edition, we cannot easily lable Molinaeus's additional rubrics. The large number of Panormia manuscripts offers a base for comparisons not available with the Decretum. 13344. Ibid., for an appraisal of Molinaeus' edition and its faithfulness to the manuscript tradition. 45. Ibid., 5. See also Paul Fournier, "Les Collections canoniques d'Yves de Chartres," BEC 58 (1897) 26-77 at 27, rp. in Mélanges de droit canonique, ed. Theo Kélzer (Aalen 1983) 506, and in Paul Fournier and Gabriel Le Histoire des collections canoniques 2 vols. (Paris 1932, rp. Aalen 1972) 2.67-8 Bri 46. Ibid., 6 47. Fronteau, Epistola dedicatoria PL 161.11-2: "Munus hoc, opinor, non despicias, quia continet, et quo aliis praecellis, summa eruditionem." 48. The dossiers in the Bibliotheque Nationale were first noted by Fournier, who lamented that Gellé's scholarship had gone unedited and unstudied. See Fournier, “Les collections canoniques," 506-7. See also Landau, n.22 above, 41-43 for a further discussion of the Maurist's work. Landau believes that Gelle only knew the Victorinus and Colbertinus Decretum manuscripts--the latter now BN lat. 3874. does suggest, however, that Gellé may have known the Second Collection of chalons contained in Chalons BM 75. For more on this collection and its transmission of the Prologue, see below in the chapter on the Prologue's legal Nachleben. As for the dossiers, the 134