¹ Parts of this work have been edited from the Prague MS by Johann Friedrich von Schulte, Roberti Flamesburiensis Summa de matrimonio et de usuris (Giessen 1868). Regarding editions of the prologue see Kuttner in the following reference, p. 496 n. 23.Google Scholar

² ‘Pierre de Roissy and Robert of Flamborough,’ Traditio 2 (1944) 492–499. It was this scholarly article with its wealth of detail which started me off on my research on Robert of Flamborough.Google Scholar

³ ‘A propos des premières Summae confessorum,’ Recherches de Théologie ancienne et médiévale 26 (1959) 276–283, 292-296. These articles by Kuttner and Michaud-Quantin indicate other literature of importance.Google Scholar

⁴ Of the 31 MSS mentioned as extant by Dr. Kuttner in Traditio 2 (1944) 496 n. 24, one, Paris, Bibl. de l'Arsenal lat. 379 does not contain our Penitential. The first part of this MS, fols. 1-36, called ‘Manuscrit A’ by Henry Martin in his Catalogue 1 (1885) 240, contains among other things various extracts relating to penance, especially a penitential beginning on fol. 13^v: ‘In capite quadragesimae omnes publice poenitentes …’ On fol. 36^v, which is mostly blank, is the notation: ‘Liber poenitentialis magistri Robert.’ Since the MS comes from the Abbey of St. Victor, this notation probably does refer to Robert of Flamborough, But if such is the case, it does not designate any of the material preceeding it in the MS; this shows no affinity to our Penitential. Rather it must have referred to what followed fol. 36 in the original binding of the gatherings. What follows it now, in manuscripts B and C of Arsenal 379, is a refutation of ‘heresies’ and other doctrinal writings with no special relation to penance. — The Chartres and Münster MSS mentioned by Doctor Kuttner have perished. Of the remaining 28, I have obtained microfilm copies of all but the Diez and Berlin MSS. An effort will be made to obtain these and to locate others; the list in Traditio loc. cit. does not purport to be exhaustive. Recently the following MSS have come to my attention: Cambridge, University Libr. Ii.VI.18 (from a communication by the late Professor Fritz Schulz to Dr. Kuttner) and Kk.VI.1 (from Bloomfield, M. W., in Traditio 11 [1955] 344-345); Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 441, pp. 37-134 (from James, M. R., Descriptive Catalogue [1912] II 349-354); Paris, lat, B. N. 10691 (from Delisle's Inventaire I [1863] 88). I would appreciate information about other MSS. — Because the films from Ann Arbor, Bamberg, Erlangen and Leipzig were the last to come into my possession, I have had no opportunity up to the present for more than a cursory examination of these 4 MSS. I have collated the 22 others.Google Scholar

⁵ Folios are not numbered in the MS itself. Those which are here numbered A1-A16 belong to two loose gatherings which in the Library of the University of Michigan are now called ‘Part B’ of the MS. They contain the text of the Penitential from the beginning to Book III chap. 3 section ‘De simonia.’ Within the section ‘De simonia’ the text breaks off at the end of the second gathering; see infra n. 13. Book IV of the Penitential begins at the top of fol. 1^r of the main part of the MS, which is the beginning of a gathering; the work then continues without interruption to the end on fol. 24^v.Google Scholar

⁶ For this and other differences in connection with orders contrast W fols. 22^vb-23^ra with, e.g., Ac fol. 20^rb_vb. An interesting difference is found in the part about marriage. The author of the Penitential cites the opinion of those who say that one should rather allow oneself to be excommunicated than live in a marital union which is illicit and supposedly invalid by reason of a private vow. The majority of the MSS then add: ‘quibus in hoc consents’ — see Schulte's edition p. 15; MS Ac fol. 4^va. But W fol. 20^va reads: ‘quibus in hoc non consentio quia majus peccatum est scandalum facere excommunicationem sustinendo quam debitum reddere uxori putativae. Sic enim quilibet propria ab ecclesia posset recedere excommunicationem sustinendo.’ Unlike the other doctrinal peculiarities of W this appears also in a very similar reading of X fol. 240^va; see infra n. 49.Google Scholar

⁷ All the MSS except W contain a reference to Odo and Peter, bishops of Paris, who succeeded one the other in 1208; see Kuttner in Traditio 2 (1944) 497. They likewise contain citations of decretals issued in 1207 and 1206; see infra nn. 57, 61. MS W does not contain these references; regarding its dependence on decretals see infra n. 59. — The text of all the MSS except X was evidently composed before the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215, because they include matrimonial impediments which were abrogated in that council; see Dietterle, , ‘Die Summae Confessorum,’ Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 24 (1903) 373. Regarding MS X see infra II 5.Google Scholar

⁸ Printed in the appendix to Hugh of St. Victor's dogmatic works, PL 177.335-379. Baron, R., ‘Hugues de Saint-Victor,’ Traditio 15 (1959) 269, suggests that all connection of this work with Hugh of St. Victor need not be excluded. Robert has used the section: ‘Alba, id est tunica illa — aridae et curvae ad retinendum,’ PL 177.352D-355A; see Ac fols. 10^vb-11^vb.Google Scholar

⁹ PL 177.354D.Google Scholar

¹⁰ E.g. MS Ac fol. 11^vb. Cf. Gillmann, F., in AKKR 90 (1910) 250 n. 3 (251).Google Scholar

¹¹ Aa fol. A14^r; Ab fol. 194^ra; Q fol. 172^vb; X fol. 249^vb.Google Scholar

¹² Fol. 18^r.Google Scholar

¹³ MS Aa is incomplete, apparently through loss of a gathering of 8 folios; cf. supra n.5. Hence this part of the work is missing; cf. Kuttner in Traditio 2 (1944) 497 n. 30. But by comparing the amount which the scribe wrote on a page with the text of the Penitential, it can be calculated that this MS most probably lacked the same long passage as the other four.Google Scholar

¹⁴ ‘Postremo — cum papae dispensatione’: Ab fol. 197^ra-b; O fol. 23^r; Q fol. 176^ra-b; X fol. 253^va; regarding Aa see preceeding note.Google Scholar

¹⁵ To correspond to the brief discussion just mentioned, W fol. 23^rb has one sentence: ‘Postremo diversas ecclesias singulas tibi sufficientes sine licentia domini papae habuisti; male fecisti.’ Then the dialogue continues, dealing with matters related to simony which are treated in different places in the regular text of the Penitential.Google Scholar

¹⁶ This passage, ‘Poenitens: Patronus praesentavit me — huic pauperi conferatis,’ occurs e.g. Ac fols. 15^ra-16^vb; K fols. 22^v-25^r; Z fols. 32^r-37^v.Google Scholar

¹⁷ E.g. Ac fols. 16^rb_va. This passage is published infra as Appendix A.Google Scholar

¹⁸ For example in the section on homicide, which preceeds that on simony, and in those parts of the section on simony which are common to all the MSS, Robert insists that no orders be received or exercised after major secret major crimes without papal dispensation. He states his policy explicitly in the section on crimen in general, before that on homicide, Ac fol. 12^ra_b: ‘De consilio tamen meo, numquam sine dispensatione papae promovebitur nec post lapsum pristinum recuperabit gradum, homicida, simoniacus, haereticus, apostata qui a fide recessit.’ Cf. also Ac fols. 12^vb-13^ra; also places cited by Kuttner in Traditio 2 (1944) 497–498.Google Scholar

¹⁹ The author calls them ‘plures juris peritiores.’ One of them evidently wrote the appendix found in three of the MSS; see infra III and Appendix The, B. influence of their opinion is also shown by the addition in AcFMNY of a critical gloss: ‘Tamen secundum aliquos episcopus potest dispensare ubicumque non est ei expresse prohibitum’ (variants omitted).Google Scholar

²⁰ Cf. Robert's whole section on homicide, Ac fols. 12^rb-13^ra; also his controversy about vows in Book II, ed. Schulte pp. 15-16; Ac fol. 4^ra_va; also his explanation of his policy in assigning penances, Ac fols. 24^vb-26^va, 39^rb_va. Parts of these last explanations have been published by Delhaye, Ph., ‘Deux textes de Senatus de Worcester sur la pénitence,’ Rech, de Théol. anc. et méd. 19 (1952) 210–211; see corrections and comments by Michaud-Quantin in Rech. de Théol. anc. et méd. 26 (1959) 282-283.Google Scholar

²¹ Edited by Adrian Morey, Bartholomew of Exeter, Bishop and Canonist (Cambridge 1937) 160–300. Regarding Robert's dependence on Bartholomew see op. cit., p. 171 and infra n. 64.Google Scholar

²² Op. cit. p. 213 lines 5-7.Google Scholar

²³ E.g. Ac fol. 26^va.Google Scholar

²⁴ carena in some MSS. Regarding this word see Du Cange, vv. carcer, carena. Cf. also quotations in Paul Anciaux, La théologie du Sacrement de pénitence au XII^e siècle (Louvain 1949) 175 n. 4, 366 n. 2.Google Scholar

²⁵ Ivo of Chartres, Decretum 15.183 (PL 161.896); cf. 15.185 (col. 897).Google Scholar

²⁶ W does not contain penitential canons. The author promises to give some (‘aliquas tamen vobis transcribam’), and then the text of the Penitential breaks off fol. 25^ra. EL are incomplete. The text breaks off before Book V, in which these canons are found. Hence of the 26 microfilm reproductions I have, only 23 contain penitential canons.Google Scholar

²⁷ Ab fol. 209^ra; O fol. 39^v.Google Scholar

²⁸ The same paragraph is a marginal insertion in Ab fol. 192^v and in O fol. 15^v. A short passage, ‘Ita inquam — cui voluerit conferendo’ (found e.g. Ac fol. 14^ra), is lacking in AbOQ; see MS O fol. 21^v. On the other hand, another short passage lacking in AbQ (see Ab fol. 200^ra) is found in O fol. 27^r. It is quite possible and even probable that one or both of the last two passages were lacking in Aa; see supra n. 13.Google Scholar

²⁹ Compare O fols. 41^r, 43^r, 45^r-46^r, 49^r_v with Ac 27^rb_va 28^vb, 30^rb, 32^va.Google Scholar

³⁰ See supra n. 7.Google Scholar

³¹ Traditio 2 (1944) 496 n. 23.Google Scholar

³² Rech. de Théol. anc. et méd. 26 (1959) 277–278.Google Scholar

³³ Not by subdividing Book IV, as Kuttner suggests loc. cit. following an erroneous supposition of Dietterle, art. cit. (n. 7 supra) 368.Google Scholar

³⁴ Art. cit. 277-278.Google Scholar

³⁵ Not in G, as Kuttner supposes loc. cit., again misled by Dietterle. Dietterle described the subdivision of Book V by lists of titles in the Leipzig MS. This is found in all the MSS wihich contain Book But, V. in some few of these MSS these subdivisions are called Liber VI, Liber VII, etc.Google Scholar

³⁶ Compare K fol. 13^r_v and P fol. 13^r with Ac fol. 8^vb.Google Scholar

³⁷ There are six lists of titles in Book V (in Ac fols. 26^ra_b, 30^rb, 33^va, 34^va, 36^ra, 37^rb). However, as Michaud-Quantin has already observed, art. cit. 277, these do not indicate six divisions of the book, but only five, with the last (sixth) list indicating only a few subdivisions of one title from the preceeding list, namely Part 5, title 4 ‘De ebrietate et gula’. In KP the titles of the last two lists are rearranged and each list is made into the beginning of a new book. Thus Book V is distributed into six books, making ten books in all.Google Scholar

³⁸ Aa after the fourth list of Robert's Book V on fol. 17^v has the rubrics: ‘De sacrilegio, Incipit liber,’ followed by a lacuna. C at the beginning of the second list in Robert's Book V on fol. 174^v has the rubrics: ‘Incipit liber VI, Capitula libri VI’, and again at the beginning of the fourth list on fol. 177^v it has the rubric: ‘Incipiunt capitula sexti libri.’ The fifth list on fol. 179^r has no rubric, and shortly afterwards the text breaks off at the end of fol. 179^v. Hence James, M. R. in his Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library of Pembroke College (Cambridge 1905) p. 215 notes: ‘In several books (wrongly numbered). Ends imperfectly in Lib. VII.’Google Scholar

³⁹ Compare X fols. 238^r, 246^r with Ac fols. 2^va, 8^vb.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ MS X fol. 241^va. Contrast with Schulte's edition p. 18.Google Scholar

⁴¹ MS X fol. 241^va_b.Google Scholar

⁴² Canon 50 (X 4.14.8).Google Scholar

⁴³ ‘La date de composition du « Liber Poenitentialis » attribué à Pierre de Poitiers,’ Rech, de Théol. anc. et méd. 9 (1937) 401–403.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ X fol. 244^rb prope finem.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Fols. 241^vb-242^rb; also 244^rb_va except for one short mention of the council.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Supra, at nn. 11, 14.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ The three passages mentioned above n. 28 are found in the text of X fols. 247^vb, 252^rb_va, 257^ra.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Namely forms (1), (2) and (3) in the following paragraph.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ A reading very similar to the one quoted near the end of note 6 above is found in X fol. 240^va.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Ac fols. 39^va-40^rb; K fols. 69^v-71^v; P 67^v-68^v. This passage is printed infra, Appendix B.Google Scholar

⁵¹ In P it is followed by the rubric: ‘Explicit poenit. magistri Ruberti,’ and in K by the rubric: ‘Explicit liber poenitentialis magistri Rupert (corr. to Ropert) canonici Victoris, S. parisiensis.’ In MS Ac it has no rubric before or after it, but even here a casual reader would consider this passage as the termination of the work. Henry Martin in his catalogue gives as the explicit of the Penitential: ‘hoc non exigeretur,’ which are the final words of this appendix.Google Scholar

⁵² Zeit. f. Kirchengesch. 24 (1903) 370.Google Scholar

⁵³ Cf. supra at n. 17; infra Appendix B.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Geschichte der Quellen und Literatur des Canonischen Rechts I (Stuttgart 1875) 210.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ For example, pp. 19-20 of Schulte's edition show several affinities with Huguccio's commentary on Causa 30; especially paragraphs 10-15 seem to be derived from Summa on C. 30 q.1 c.8 (Paris, B.N. 3892, fol. 300^rb_va). Robert's citation of D. 86 c.24 at the bottom of page 24 ed. cit. makes no sense in his text, but it does in the text of Huguccio, Summa on C.36 q.2 c.1 (B.N. 3892, fol. 356^va), on which this passage is based. — Especially one passage in Book III about ordination by heretics, ‘Dicunt aliqui: Si accepit quis ultimam manus impositionem — papa autem potest dispensare cum talibus si vult’ (e.g. Ac fols. 9^va-10^ra), is evidently derived from Huguccio, Summa on C.9 q.1 pr. (B.N. 3892, fol. 176^rb_va). The last-mentioned passage illustrates well his use of the canonist's Summa. He follows his source step by step, citing the canons which are cited there; yet he works into his own text an expression from Praepositinus of Cremona; cf. infra at nn. 62, 63. Even such close relationship with Huguccio does not rule out the possibility of an intermediary.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Thus his reference to the decretal Accessit (X 4.2.5), found in Schulte's edition p. 21 c.13 §2, is best explained if we observe that the text which preceeds this reference (the first part of §2 along with §1 and the last part of the preceeding paragraph) is derived from Huguccio, Summa on C.30 q.2 pr. (B.N. 3892, fol. 300^vb). Huguccio cited this decretal along with two others and Robert probably derived the citation from him.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ From Schulte's edition it can be seen that Robert cites decretals of Innocent III, who reigned after the time of Huguccio. For example the reference p. 22 n. 21 to Po. 3168 (cf. 3 Compil. 2.15.11; X 2.24.25), issued in 1207.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ See Schulte's, edition p. 14 at n. 5. Th etext should read: ‘ut in decretali Praeterea, in titulo De conversione conjugatorum.’ The Prague MS reads ‘capitulo’ instead of ‘titulo.’ The reference is to 1 Compil. 3.28.1 (X 3.32.1).Google Scholar

⁵⁹ The long paragraph which in Schulte's edition is continued pp. 14-15 is found without significant variation in MS W fol. 20^ra_b; it is apparently based on Po. 434 (X 3.31.16) and Po. 502 (X 3.31.17), both issued in 1198, and possibly also on Po. 572 (X 3.31.13), issued January 1199. On fol. 23^ra the penitent is instructed that a patron may not present himself for a benefice, apparently from Po. 275 (X 3.38.26), issued in 1198. It is just possible that what is said about times of ordination in the same column has some connection with Po. 1327 (X 1.11.13), issued March or April 1201. The excommunication reserved to the pope of the ‘falsarius’ mentioned fol. 24^va is apparently from Po. 202 (X 5.20.4), issued in 1198. Finally, what is found on fol. 21^va about marriages of infidels may be derived in part from Po. 684 (X 4.19.7), issued in May 1199.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Mentioned supra n. 57.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Thus on page 12 of Schulte's edition he speaks of a husband who sought and obtained the return of his wife. The reference seems to be, as Schulte indicates, n.2, to Po. 2836 (X 4.15.6) issued in 1206. But while it is stated in the decretal that the second marriage was dissolved on grounds similar to those indicated, nothing is said there about a demand of the first husband for the return of his wife. Robert twice cites a decretal, usually attributed to Clement III, under the name ‘Celestinus.’ One such reference, at the bottom of p. 16 in Schulte's edition, is to JL 16637 (2 Compil. 3.18.3, X 3.31.12), which according to the better tradition of the earlier collections actually was issued by Celestine III, cf. Holtzmann, W., ‘La « Collectio Seguntina » et les décrétales de Clément III et de Célestin III,’ RHE 50 (1955) 436.Google Scholar

⁶² E.g. Ac fols. 9^vb-10^ra.Google Scholar

⁶³ ‘Die Notwendigkeit der Intention auf seiten des Spenders und des Empfängers der Sakramente nach der Anschauung der Frühscholastik,’ Der Katholik (4th series) 18 (1916) 111–113; cf. Artur Landgraf, ‘Beiträge der Frühscholastik zur Terminologie der allgemeinen Sakramentenlehre,’ Divus Thomas (Freiburg) 29 (1951) 9-34.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Bartholomew of Exeter 171; cf. supra n.21. This dependence on Bartholomew can be confirmed by a comparison of Ac fol. 26^rb_vb with pp. 212-214 of Morey's edition.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ See Morey, , op. cit. 173-174.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ The first three penitential canons which Robert quotes are found in the same order in Ivo, Decretum 10.5-7 (PL 161.693), but not in Bartholomew's Penitential. Of course, such literary dependence does not exclude the possibility of other intermediaries.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Not to be confused with the chancellor of Paris. The text is a quotation by Teetaert, A., ‘Le « Liber Poenitentialis » de Pierre de Poitiers,’ Aus der Geisteswelt des Mittelalters (Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philos. und Theol. des Mittelalters, Suppl. 3; Münster 1935) 1.325.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ The three topics mentioned here are indeed found in the penitential canons quoted in Robert of Flamborough's Penitential.Google Scholar

¹ Vide infra, Appendix Cf, B. Glossa orditi. in D. 50 pr.Google Scholar

² Vide D.50 cc.4-6Google Scholar

³ Cf. C.26 q.5 cc.5, 13Google Scholar

⁴ Vide JL 13988: 1 Compil. 5.25. un. (X 5.30.1); etiam JL 16597: 2 Compil. 5.12.2 (X 5.30.3)Google Scholar

⁵ Vide C.11 q.3 cc.6-7; etiam JL 13803: 1 Compil. 5.23.3 (X 5.27.3)Google Scholar

⁶ Vide Glossa ordin. in C.1 q.5 c.3 ‘Fratrumque’Google Scholar

⁷ Vide C.1 q.1 c.107; etiam JL 16466: 2 Compil. 5.2.9 (X 5.3.27)Google Scholar

⁸ Forsitan Po. 5021: 4 Compil. 5.2.1 (X 5.3.37)Google Scholar

⁹ JL 14091: 1 Compil. 2.1.6 (X 2.1.4)Google Scholar

¹⁰ Joann. 19.22.Google Scholar

¹ Po. 953; cf. 3 Compil. 1.6.5 (X 1.6.20)Google Scholar

² D.34 c.18Google Scholar

³ 1 Compil. 1.13.3 (X 1.21.2)Google Scholar

⁴ Dig. 4.6.28.1-2Google Scholar

⁵ 1 Compil. 4.2.1 (C.27 q.2 c.18)Google Scholar

⁶ D.82 c.5Google Scholar

⁷ D.50 C.4Google Scholar

⁸ D.50 C.36Google Scholar

⁹ C.11 q.3 c.6Google Scholar

¹⁰ JL 16466; cf. 2 Compil. 5.2.9 (X 5.3.27)Google Scholar

¹¹ 1 Compil. 5.2.16 (X 5.3.7); cf. infra n.22Google Scholar

¹² C.1 q.5 c.3Google Scholar

¹³ JL 13860; cf. 1 Compil. 5.26.7 (X 5.18.5)Google Scholar

¹⁴ D.50 c.34Google Scholar

¹⁵ D.32 c.11Google Scholar

¹⁶ C.32 q.1 c.10Google Scholar

¹⁷ De poen. D.3 c.42Google Scholar

¹⁸ C.2 q.3 d.p. c.8 §8Google Scholar

¹⁹ Tit. 1.7Google Scholar

²⁰ D.25 d.p. c. 3 §4Google Scholar

²¹ C.14 q.6 c.1Google Scholar

²² 1 Compil. 5.2.16 (X 5.3.7).Google Scholar