¹ Holtzmann, W., ‘Über eine Ausgabe der päpstlichen Dekretalen des 12. Jahrhunderts,’ Nachrichten Akad. Göttingen (1945) 15–36; idem and Kemp, E. W., Papal Decretals Relating to the Diocese of Lincoln, (Lincoln Record Society; 1954) xii-xiii; Kuttner, S., ‘Notes on a Projected Corpus of Twelfth Century Decretal Letters,’ Traditio 6 (1948) 345–51.Google Scholar

² The description ‘English Family’ is particularly liable to confusion, since all three groups could equally aptly be so described. The ‘Bridlington Family’ is so identified because the earlier of its two surviving members belonged originally to Bridlington Priory, but the family archetype was produced in the province of Canterbury. The suitability of the name ‘Worcester Family’ is discussed below.Google Scholar

³ For the Worcester Collection: British Museum Royal MS 10.A II, fols. 5–62; Lohmann, H., ‘Die Collectio Wigorniensis,’ ZRG Kan. Abt. 22 (1933) 36–187. For the Trinity Collection: Trinity College Cambridge MS R.14.9, fols. 82–87. The Worcester Collection is described as the oldest member of the family in Holtzmann-Kemp, op. cit. xii, and Brooke, C. N. L., ‘Canons of English Church Councils in the Early Decretal Collections,’ Traditio 13 (1957) 475. But see also Holtzmann, , Nachrichten 22; and idem, ‘Die Dekretalen-sammlungen des 12. Jahrhunderts: 1. Die Sammlung Tanner,’ Festschrift zur Feier des 200jährigen Bestehens der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Phil.-Hist. Kl. (1951) 98–99: in these earlier studies Holtzmann's list of Worcester Family members apparently agrees with the suggestion made here that the Trinity Collection is the earliest extant derivative.Google Scholar

⁴ Holtzmann, Nachrichten 22. Only the Worcester and Klosterneuburg Collections have been analyzed. For the latter: Klosterneuburg Stiftsbibl. MS 19, fols. 36–87; Schönsteiner, F., ‘Die Collectio Claustroneoburgensis,’ Jahrbuch des Stiftes Klosterneuburg 2 (1909) 1–154.Google Scholar

⁵ The full details of these three works are given in nn. 3 and 4, above. For the connection with Baldwin of Ford, see Lohmann, , art. cit. 53 n.1; Kuttner, S. - Rathbone, E., ‘Anglo-Norman Canonists of the Twelfth Century,’ Traditio 7 (1951) 282–83; and Brooke, art. cit. 475.Google Scholar

⁶ Lohmann, art. cit. 51–53: the family archetype included one decretal issued on Jan. 23, 1181 (Wig. 7.59 and Claustr. 291), but no decretals later than the death of Alexander III on Aug. 30, 1181, are found in any of these three collections. For the technical structure of the Worcester Collection: Lohmann, art. cit. 39–40 and 43–53; see also van Hove, A., Prolegomena 350–52.Google Scholar

⁷ British Museum Egerton MS 2819, fols. 11–102; Holtzmann, Nachrichten 22; Kuttner, Repertorium der Kanonistik 346; van Hove, op. cit. 353; Misserey, L. R., ‘Collection de Cheltenham,’ DDC 3 (1942) 682–83; Rathbone, E. [unpublished London Ph. D. thesis], Bishops and Cathedral Bodies in England, 1066–1215 (1935) 509ff. The collection includes one decretal of Clement III: Chelt. fol. 101^rb, Referentibus canonicis, JL 16181 (1187–91); and the final item in the manuscript is a decretal of Celestine III: fol. 102^ra, Bone memorie Alanus, JL 17055 and 17675 (1193).Google Scholar

⁸ For the Cottonian Collection: British Museum Cotton MS. Vitellius E. XIII, fols. 204–88; Falletti, L., ‘Collectio Cottoniana,’ DDC 4 (1949) 725–26; this MS was severely damaged in the Cotton fire of 1731: many fragments were destroyed or are now illegible, but much can be reconstructed by collation with the Peterhouse MSS. For the Peterhouse Collection: Peterhouse Cambridge MSS 193 (last quire), 114 (first and last quires), 193 (first quire), 203 (last quire) and 180 (first and last quires); James, M. R., Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library of Peterhouse, Cambridge (1899): James was mistaken in describing these fragments as parts of a volume of Cistercian Ordinances; the full collection no longer exists, but the seven fragments listed here have been rediscovered in the end-bindings of various Dyngley volumes in the Peterhouse Library. For the Peterhouse Collection, see also Kuttner, , Projectea Corpus 348; idem and Rathbone, art. cit. 283 n.14; Holtzmann, Nachrichten 22; idem and Kemp, op. cit. xiii; and Ch. Lefebvre, ‘Collection de Peterhouse,’ DDC 6 (1957) 1438. A fragment discovered by Kolsrud among the MSS of Oslo University was provisionally classified as a member of the Worcester Family, but this view has been abandoned: Holtzmann-Kemp, op. cit. xiii; Holtzmann, ‘La collection “Seguntina” et les décrétales de Clément III et de Célestin III,’ RHE 50 (1955) 401 n.2; Ch. Lefebvre, ‘Fragment d'Oslo,’ DDC 6 (1957) 1180.Google Scholar

⁹ Holtzmann's classification of these collections as ‘Pre-Compilatio Prima’ is chronologically misleading, since both works were completed later than Bernard of Pavia's Compilatio prima. Falletti, art. cit. 725–26, dates the Cottonian Collection by the pontificate of Clement III (1188–91), but at least two decretals in the closing folios were issued by Celestine III in 1193, though their inscriptions are no longer legible in the MS: fol. 287^v, to the prior and chapter of Huntingdon, Bone memorie Alanus, JL 17055 and 17675 (1193); fol. 286^v, to John, dean of Rouen, Prudentiam tuam, JL 17019 (June 17, 1193). Similarly, Lefebvre, art. cit. 1438, dates the Peterhouse Collection at least five years too early in 1188: see Peterhouse MS 193 (first quire), fol. 2^vb: ‘Celestinus papa J(ohanni) Rothomagensi decano. A nobis fuit etc. Dat. Lat. xix. Kl. Decembris, pontificatus nostri anno tertio.’ At least one other decretal in this collection was sent by Celestine III to Hubert Walter as archbishop of Canterbury, its earliest possible date being that of Hubert's elevation in 1193: Pet. MS 193 (first quire), fol. 1^ra.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Lohmann, art. cit. 43–48 and 164–87; and Appendix I, below. Lohmann's analysis is defective at the close of Wig. II, ibid. p. 100, where he states that the transcription breaks off abruptly through scribal oversight at ‘privilegium nostrum,’ but the decretal (Wig. 2.37) is correctly concluded to ‘integre solvunt’ on the folio-verso, and is followed by a further decretal transcribed in a different hand, and concerned with the Church in Hungary.Google Scholar

¹¹ Lohmann, art. cit. 45–48.Google Scholar

¹² Cf. Schönsteiner, art. cit., Appendix, and Lohmann, art. cit. 44–48 and 164–87. See also Appendix I (b) and (c), below: thus, in Book III the family archetype is represented by Wig. 3.1–25 and Claustr. 114–41; but Claustr. 142 = Wig. 4.1, and Wig. 3.26–40 are interpolated at this point.Google Scholar

¹³ Thus, Wig. 2.27–37 and 3.26–40 were, with only four exceptions, all omitted from Claustr. Google Scholar

¹⁴ Lohmann, art. cit. 48.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Ibid. 45–48.Google Scholar

¹⁶ A complete analysis is given in Appendix I, below. The whole of Book I is lost, and the remaining fragment begins abruptly towards the end of Book II, breaking off equally abruptly early in Book IV; the whole of Books V, VI and VII are missing.Google Scholar

¹⁷ On internal evidence alone, the dating limits for the Trinity fragment are 1178 and 1181; the earlier limit is fixed by the presence of the decretal Cum essemus Venecie (Trin. 3.5), JL 14334 (1178); and the later by the absence of any material dated after the death of Alexander III. But since the archetype included one decretal of Jan. 23, 1181, this date must also be accepted for Trin. Google Scholar

¹⁸ The textual relationship between the extant MSS is extremely complex. Despite the greater correspondence between Wig. and Trin., a closer agreement exists in some details between Trin. and Claustr. For examples and further comparative details, see Appendix I (a) below. The Klosterneuburg MS is seriously defective in certain respects: decretal inscriptions are omitted, and details of names and places are often inaccurate: see Schönsteiner, , art. cit. nn. 66, 104, 110, 135, 145, 197, 224 and 290.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Thus, Trin. 2.26–29 agree exactly with Wig. 2.27–30, but only the second of these items is found also in Claustr.; and even that is not in the corresponding position: Claustr. 344. Again, none of the decretals Wig. 2.31–37 and 3.26–40 are found in Trin.; and only two are found in Claustr., and these are not in the corresponding positions: Wig. 3.28 and 36 = Claustr. 343 and 300.ii; Wig. 3.39 repeats 3.24 = Trin. 3.25 and Claustr. 140. It must be assumed that the decretals now discovered in Wig, alone were not included in the family archetype.Google Scholar

²⁰ As argued below, the Cheltenham Collection also preserves a very early derivation from the original source, but the Trinity Collection was certainly completed earlier. Even the Cottonian and Peterhouse Collections were not textually dependent on Trin. Wig. or Claustr.; and all members play their part in helping to reconstruct the authentic details of the family archetype.Google Scholar

²¹ This is clear in the decretal inscriptions in the Trinity Collection: see Appendix I, below.Google Scholar

²² Hampe, K., ‘Reise nach England,’ Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft für ältere deutsche Geschichtskunde 22 (1897) 388–415; Seckel, E., ‘Ueber drei Canonessammlungen des ausgehenden 12. Jahrhunderts,’ Neues Archiv 25 (1900) 523–25 and 329–31; Kuttner, Repertorium 346; Holtzmann, Nachrichten 22.Google Scholar

²³ Misserey, art. cit. 682–83: ‘une collection systématique, satellite du groupe de la collection de Bamberg.’ Cf. Holtzmann, loc. cit. and Die Sammlung Tanner, 92–94; idem and Kemp, op. cit. xii.Google Scholar

²⁴ The opening folios are clearly dependent on the Bamberg-Leipzig tradition: cf. Chelt. fols. 17^vb-21, and the first items in the Leipzig Collection: Friedberg, Canonessammlungen 119–20; and in the Bamberg Collection, ibid. 93–94.Google Scholar

²⁵ The Cheltenham Collection is set out under sixteen rubricated headings typified by the following: fol. 17^v: ‘De simoniacis et indebitis exactionibus tam in ecclesiasticis quam castris et scolis regendis. De transactionibus et patronatu in quibus quandoque notatur simonia’; fol. 22^v: ‘De transactionibus et iure patronatus’; fol. 29^v: ‘De iurament o calumpnie, et ut clerici non iurent’; etc. Other similar examples are found on fols. 31^r, 36^r, 40^r, 58^v, 63^r, 66^r, 67^v, 73^r, 75^v, 81^v, 86^v, 91^r, 96^r. A further sub-heading ‘De capellanis castrorum’ appears on fol. 21^v; and a list of titles is found on fol. 1^v. A few examples will show the correspondence between the Worcester and Cheltenham Collections: Chelt. fols. 25^v-27^v = Wig. 7.73 and 76–79; fols. 63^r-64^v = Wig. 4. 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 30, 13, 23; fols. 84^r-86^v = Wig. 3.1–3, 5–8, 19, 21–23, 26, 29, 32, 35, 36; etc.Google Scholar

²⁶ There is a close agreement in many decretal inscriptions between Wig. and Chelt.: cf. Wig. 1.33–44 and Chelt. fols. 48^rb-51^rb; but there is no consistent textual correspondence between them, or between either of them and Trin. Thus, Wig. 2.22 has the inscription ‘Remevensi archiepiscopo,’ where Trin. 2.22 has no inscription, and Chelt. fol. 62^vb has ‘Eliensi episcopo’; many other similar variants could be cited. At the same time, a close agreement is frequently discovered between Wig. and Trin., as the analysis of the Trinity Collection in Appendix I, below, reveals. In contrast, the decretal inscriptions are entirely omitted from Claustr. See also Appendix I (c), below: Trin. 2.25–27 = Wig. 2.26–28, and these three decretals are found also in Chelt. fols. 62^ra, 60^rb and 60^va; in addition, Wig. 2.25 is found on fol. 63^ra.Google Scholar

²⁷ App. I: Wig. 3.26, 29, 32, 35, 36 are found in Chelt. fols. 86^ra, 86^rb, 86^va, 86^va, 86^va respectively. None of these decretals occurs in a corresponding position in Trin. Google Scholar

²⁸ App. I: Trin. 2.28–29 = Wig. 2.29–30; but neither item exists in a corresponding position in Chelt. Google Scholar

²⁹ App. I: Wig. 2.31; 3.27–28, 33–34 and 37–38.Google Scholar

³⁰ Chelt. fols. 48^rb-51^rb. If these items are numbered i-xv, for convenient reference to their order of transcription in Chelt., the corresponding arrangements in Wig. and Claustr. are as follows: Wig. 1.33, 34bc, 35, 36, 41, 38, 37, 39, 40, 42–45, 34a, or Claustr. 70–75 and 309–15. Chelt. vi is not found at this point in either Wig. or Claustr. though it does occur as Wig. 7.55; and Chelt. xiv-xv are not included in Claustr. It is obvious from the MSS that the scribes were aware that a misplacement of decretals had occurred, since both Wig. and Chelt. include cross-references where the readjustments are necessary: see Lohmann, , art. cit. 86, at Wig. 1.37; and Chelt. fols. 48^rb, 49^vb and 51^rb.Google Scholar

³¹ Cf. Wig. 2.37 (Lohmann, art. cit. 86) and Chelt. fol. 49^vb; etc. See also n.26, above.Google Scholar

³² This conclusion has been suggested also by Ullmann, W., ‘A Forgotten Dispute at Bridlington Priory in its Canonistic Setting,’ Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 148 (1951) 460: ‘one may even suggest that the decretal in Coll. Cheltenhamensis presents to us the nearest approximation to the originar’; and Rathbone, op. cit. (n.7) 509ff.Google Scholar

³³ The Worcester Collection is Royal MS 10.A II, fols. 5^r-62^v. Further letters are transcribed independently on fols. l^r-3^r and 62^v-63^v, the latter group breaking off abruptly owing to the loss of one or more folios. For details of these letters, see Baumgarten, P. M., ‘Papal Letters relating to England,’ EHR 9 (1894) 531–41.Google Scholar

³⁴ Kuttner-Rathbone, art. cit. 282–83 and nn.10–11; Morey, A., Bartholomew of Exeter (Cambridge 1937), 100ff; Cheney, M., ‘The Compromise of Avranches of 1172 and the Spread of Canon Law in England,’ EHR 56 (1941) 177–97.Google Scholar

³⁵ In Wig. alone the following decretals were received jointly by Worcester and Exeter: 1.31 (JL 14167); 4.4 (JL 13928); 4.44; 4.47 (JL 13923); 4.50; 7.22; and 7.70. Wig. 3.22 (JL 14224) is addressed to Exeter and Winchester in this collection, but sometimes to Exeter and Worcester elsewhere.Google Scholar

³⁶ For Baldwin while at Exeter and Ford, see Morey, , op. cit. 23–29 and 105–9; on the alignment of English bishops during the Becket controversy, see Knowles, D., The Episcopal Colleagues of Archbishop Thomas Becket (Cambridge 1951) 1–52.Google Scholar

³⁷ Maitland, F. W., Roman Canon Law in the Church of England (London 1898) 128: Maitland noticed the large number of decretals sent by Alexander III to the abbot of Ford, but was unaware of their significance in the provenance of the decretal collections. Cf. Kuttner-Rathbone, art. cit. 282–83. But it cannot be assumed that all decretals addressed to Ford and included in the collections were received by Baldwin: cf. Ullmann, art. cit. 465.Google Scholar

³⁸ Lohmann, , art. cit. 53 n.1. For details of Baldwin's career, see Foreville, R., L'Eglise et la Royauté en Angleterre sous Henri II Plantagenet , 1154–89 (Paris 1943), 384–87 and 533–54: Roger died on Aug. 9, 1179; Baldwin succeeded him on Aug. 10, 1180; Baldwin was promoted to Canterbury on Dec. 16, 1184, and died at Acre on Nov. 19, 1190. See also n.33, above.Google Scholar

³⁹ A list of Wig. decretals with Exeter and/or Worcester inscriptions is given in Appendix II, below. It is well known that decretal inscriptions are not always reliable in any given MS; but the margin of possible errors of this kind in Wig. could not invalidate the general conclusions suggested here.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Appendix II, below: notice especially the concluding items in Books III, IV and VII.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Ibid. 1.2–47 and 4.35–50. Many of the supplementary decretals received at Worcester were previously unknown when Lohmann analysed Wig. in 1933: Wig. 1.48; 2.34; 3.38 and 40; 4.39, 44, 45, 48, 49, 50; 7.70, 72, 73, 79, 80. It is significant that none of these items was included in the family archetype.Google Scholar

⁴² Ibid., 1.43; 7.2, 14, 15, 26, 65, 77, 78. It is possible that 7.11 was also received by Baldwin, being addressed to the archdeacon of Exeter.Google Scholar

⁴³ But cf. n.37, above: Ullmann, art. cit. 465.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Since Baldwin became bishop of Worcester in August 1180, and the latest positive date in both the archetype and Wig. is Jan. 23, 1181, it is most unlikely that any decretals of Worcester provenance included in Wig. were received by Baldwin as bishop. Since Roger died in August 1179, and the earliest possible date of composition of Wig. must be later than Jan. 23, 1181, the absence of so many of Roger's decretals from the archetype, and their very substantial supplementation of the archetype in Wig. strongly support the conclusion that the archetype was not itself of Worcester provenance.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ The letters of Lucius III to Baldwin are: Royal MS 10 A.II, fol. 63^va, Ex conquestione, JL 15205 (Dec. 13, 1181); fol. 62^va, Fraternitati tue, JL 15204 (1181–83); fol. 63^vb, Significavit nobis, JL 14964 (June 5, 1182–83).Google Scholar

⁴⁶ The letters of Urban III to Baldwin are: ibid. fol. 1^r, Celestis altitudo, JL 15518 (Jan. 12, 1186); fol. 2^va-b, Sinceritas devotionis (Dec. 13, 1185); fol. 3^rb, Sicut tue littere (June 23, 1186–87). To the Canterbury clergy: fols. 2^vb-3^ra, Divine sapientie (Dec. 18, 1185); and to Henry II: fol. 2^r, Ab oculis Romane (Dec. 17, 1185).Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Ibid. fol. 62^v, Illud operata (Dec. 1187).Google Scholar

⁴⁸ The older folio numbers, recently changed to 83–88, have been retained here.Google Scholar