Folia Theologica et Canonica 3. 25/17 (2014)

IUS CANONICUM - José Miguel Viejo-Ximénez, The Summa Quoniam in Omnibus revisited

THE SUMMA QUONIAM IN OMNIBUS REVISITED

157

fragments to the whole work? The use of a common source will always remain a plausible alternative: first, because Quoniam in omnibus is a collage; and second, because the other two statements of the Summa Parisiensis are doubtful.

The author of Quoniam in omnibus borrowed from Bulgarus, from other glossators, from theologians, from the Corpus Iuris Civilis, from other decre- tists, from canonical collections and from Church Fathers.14 15 He hardly ever mentions the original source.

Speaking of five of Gratian’s chapters, Quoniam in omnibus collects opinions of unknown decretists: ‘Quidam hanc auctoritatem ita exponunt (...)’, 7n hoc loco quidam contra Augustinum argumentantur dicentes (...)’, ‘Vel illudAmb- rosii secundum quosdam (...)’, ‘Quidam predictas auctoritates aliter determinant. Dicunt enim (...)’ and ‘Alii habent (...)’.15 Paucapalea is supposed to be Gratian’s first student. These references indicate that the author of Quoniam in omnibus had colleagues or even predecessors.

Some anonymous marginal (and interlinear) glosses of the oldest of Gratian’s manuscripts appear also in the SQO. Modem scholars are reluctant to establish the relative chronology. Sometimes, they concede priority to the gloss, other times they grant this privilege to Quoniam in omnibus. The relationship between the summa and the ‘first stage of gloss composition’ is not clear either.16 Setting aside the question of authorship could help to understand these and other questions.

The two doubtful statements of the Summa Parisiensis appear in the comments on D. 11 c. 4 and D. 23 c. 33 (Appendix II.2 - 3).17 D. 11 c. 4 is a Constantine constitution about customary law from the year 319. In the Justinianic Code and in the canonical collections the imperial document ends: ‘(...) ratio- nem uincat (uincat rationem) aut legem',18 Gratian (?) added one word: *(...)

14 Cf. ViEJO-XiMÉNEZ, J. M., La ‘Summa’ (n. 3), 63 - 71, and Viejo-XimÉnez, J. M., Una composi- ción (n. 3), 439—457.

15 Cf. the comments on C. 2 q. 3 c. 3 in von Schulte, J. F. (ed.), Die Summa (n. 1), 59.3, C. 27 q. 1 c. 41 (ib. 113.14-15), C. 32 q. 7 (ib. 128.36-37), C. 32 q. 7 c. 19, c. 23c.24(ib. 129.13), and on C. 35 q. 5 c. 6 (ib. 140.31-32). According to Maassen: ‘Dass darunter Glossatoren des Decrets zu suchen sind, kann nach dem Zusammenhang nicht zweifelhaft sein’; Maassen, F., Paucapalea (n. 2), 46-47. Schulte’s opinion was different: ‘Der Plural quidam beweist nichts’; von Schulte, J. F. (ed.), Die Summa (n. 1), xvi.

16 Cf. Weigand, R., Die ersten Jahrzehnte der Schule von Bologna: Wechselwirkung von Summen und Glossen, in Proceedings München 1992 (Monumenta Iuris Canonici C/10), 445-465, at 448^154.

17 Cf. Maassen, F., Paucapalea (n. 2), 40, 44. von Schulte, J. F. (ed.), Die Summa (n. 1), x; and McLaughlin, T. P., The Summa (n. 2), xxvi, 10,25.

18 Cod. Just. 8.52.2: ‘(...) aut rationem vincat aut legem’. Canonical colleccions: ID 4.202 (‘[...] aut rationem vincat aut legem’.), IP 2.163 (‘[...] aut rationem vincat aut legem’.), TrB 3.7(8).3 (‘[...] ut rationem uincat, aut legem’.) and Pol. 3.23.5 (‘[...] aut rationem vincat aut legem’).