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

159

And what about the title of the manuscript from the thirteenth century? Under the codex’s opening rubric, ‘Excerpta ex summa pauce palee', the scribe copied a summary of Quoniam in omnibus.23 This would be the oldest testimony to the attribution. Its origin and credibility are unknown. It could reflect a tradition from the late twelfth century. But against these kind of assertions, prevention is better than cure.24 Pacuapalea has been considered the person who inserted the paleae into the Decretum only because that is what the Summa Pari- siensis said about some chapters.25 For the moment, the heading ‘Excerpta ex summa pauce palee' should be understood in a broad way: Quoniam in omnibus gathered Paucapalea?s teachings.

4. Third and last, the most recent pieces of the SQO. Iustitie ratio exigit, a decretal that has been used to comment D. 63, was promulgated by Pope Eugene III in about 1146 (JL 9658). The date has sometimes been taken as a probable terminus post quern for the composition.26 But this document could probably not be the most recent piece of Quoniam in omnibus. This suspicion relies on, at least, the following pieces of evidence.

In the introductory comment on C. 27 it is possible to distinguish two elements. Quoniam in omnibus starts with a connecting paragraph: while the first part of the Decretum was dedicated to spiritual marriage (the union between the clerics and the Church), now Gratian is going to speak about physical or carnal marriage (the union between the husband and the wife). This continuano (Sch 110.21 - 29) is the first element of the introductory comment on C. 21.21 The second element is a brief essay about marital law, which has two ‘chapters’: chapter one (Sch 110.30 - 111.9), on what marriage exists for, or why the people get married (‘propter quas causas soleat fieri coniugium,)\ and chapter two (Sch 111.18 - 29), on how many marital impediments there are (‘inter quos nuptiae siue matrimonium possit contraili' ).n 23 24 25 26 27 28

23 Cf. von Schulte, J. F. (ed.), Die Summa (n. 1), v, xi, and infra Appendix 1.17.

24 Up to now no one has drawn any conclusions about authorship based on ‘Glose Gradoni super canon(um)’, the opening rubric of another copy of the SQO (cf. von Schulte, J. F. [ed.], Die Summa (n. 1), iv, and infra Appendix 1.10).

25 Cf. Maassen, F., Paucapalea (n. 2), 36-40. von Schulte, J. F. (ed.), Die Summa (n. 1), viii. McLaughlin, T. P., The Summa (n. 2), xi-xv, and xxvi; and Viejo-Ximénez, J. M., Palea, in Otaduy, J. - Vian a, A. - Sedano, J. (dir.), Dicdonario General de Derecho Canònico, V (n. 2), 864-882.

26 Cf. Weigand, R., Frühe Kanonisten (n. 8), 136 n. 5; and Viejo-Ximénez, J. M., Una composición (n. 3), 443-444.

27 On continuationes as literary genre ‘der älteste Glossentypus’, cf. Kuttner, S., Repertorium (n. 2), 4, 23 (Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 10), 24 (Pembroke College, 162) and 127 (SQO).

28 Between the two ‘chapters’, there are two definitions of marriage with short comments (Sch 111.10-17): cf. Viejo-Ximénez, J. M., La Summa (n. 3), 70-71.