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

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

156

JOSÉ MIGUEL VIEJO-XIMÉNEZ

were the same person is an unsolved question. Only one thing seems probable: the making of the two prologues took place in the same academic environment.

Quonicim in omnibus’ prologue is a tiled floor built by joining paving stones taken from the Digest, the introduction ICTh and the Decretum Gratiani. Its plumb line was a four-pointed sketch, well known to glossators and decretists: parts / origins / subject / intention.9 These preliminary words are among the oldest systematic interpretations (introductiones) of Gratian. But they are not the first ones. They also form a kind of unifying element for the hundreds of mosaic ‘tesserae’ pieced together to explain the selected sections of the Decretum. The whole summa is a mosaic. And just as the prologue of Quoniam in omnibus remains an anonymous work, the evidence alleged to ascribe some of the pieces of the summa to one person is not conclusive.

3. Second, the authorship. That Paucapalea wrote Quoniam in omnibus seems an indisputable assertion.10 Paradoxically, its grounds are not very solid. They consist of four statements from the twelfth century, one from the Summa Anti- quitate et tempore and three from the Summa Parisiensis, and the title of a manuscript copy from the thirteenth century. Let us start with the two summae on the Decretum of Gratian.11

The fragment of Antiquitate et tempore corresponds with the parallel section of Quoniam in omnibus (Appendix II. 1 ).12 It is also the case with one of the three paragraphs of the Summa Parisiensis (Appendix II.4).13 Word coincidence could mean author coincidence, but is it reasonable to extrapolate from two

9 See, for instance, the Materia Codicis secundum Irnerium, the Bulgari Materia Codicis, and the Materia Summae Codicis Trecensis, Kantorowicz, H. - Buckland, W. (ed.), Studies in the Glossators of the Roman Law. Newly discovered Writings of the Twelfth Century, Cambridge 1938 (repr. Aalen 1969) 237-239. See also the Materia Codicis of the Summa Londinensis, the Materia Codicis Fuldensis et Claustroneoburgensis, and the Materia Codicis Ioannis Bassiani, Loschiavo, L. (ed.), Summa Codicis (n. 3), 195-217.

10 Except for Noonan, J. T., The True Paucapalea?, in Proceedings Salamanca 1976 (Monumenta Iuris Canonici C/6), 257-286, who argues that Paucapalea did not write the SQO, but the Summa Sicut Vetus Testamentum (c. 1146 and 1150). Against Noonan’s argument see Weigand, R., Paucapalea und die frühe Kanonistik, in AkKR 150 (1981) 137-157, esp. 138-144.

11 Hanc ceterasque historias in rationibus paucae paleae diligenter legendo reperies', Thaner, F. (ed.), Papst Alexander III. (n. 2), 162. Jacobi, K. A., Der Ehetraktat des Magister Rolandus von Bologna. Redaktiongeschichtliche Untersuchung und Edition (Studienausgabe), Hamburg 2004. 360: this sentence from the Stroma Rolandi makes reference to a biblical history that was not used by the SQO. The ‘rationibus paucae paleae’ could be another work: cf. Maassen, F., Paucapalea (n. 2), 5,46. von Schulte, J. F. (ed.), Die Summa (n. 1), ix-x.

12 It is the comment on D. 1 c. 5: cf. Maassen, F., Paucapalea, (n. 2), 43^44 [Rufin]; and von Schulte, J. F. (ed.), Die Summa (n. 1), x-xi.

13 It is the comment on D. 46 c. 9: cf. Maassen, F., Paucapalea, 44-45. von Schulte, J. F. (ed.), Die Summa (n. 1), x; and McLaughlin, T. P., The Summa (n. 2), xxvi, 41-42.