Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 1340
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

Вам также может понравиться