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

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

158

JOSÉ MIGUEL VIEJO-XIMÉNEZ

rationem uincat aut legem scriptam’.19 The Summa Parisiensis ascribes this addition to Paucapalea: ‘vincat rationem aut legem. Haec est vera littera, sed quia Paucapalea glossavit rationem, i.e. vêtus testamentum, jus naturale, et legem Le. scriptam, in quibusdam libris est hoc insertum.'

Quoniam in omnibus offers two clarifications for Constantine's last words, ratio and lex. Firstly, ratio means ius naturale20 (but not uetus testamentum), while lex is the ius ciuile (and not the lex scripta). And secondly, ratio is aequi- tas, while lex means lex scripta. Therefore, if the Summa Parisiensis is correct, Quoniam in omnibus copies Paucapalea’s gloss on D. 11 c. 4 in an incomplete and messy way: it omits uetus testamentum and changes the order. Furthermore Quoniam in omnibus suggests two synonyms unknown to Paucapalea (if we trust in the Summa Parisiensisis): ius ciuile and aequitas.1'

According to the Summa Parisiensis, Paucapalea explained the meaning of paranymphi as follows: ‘(...) paralymphi qui dánt aquam manibus’. The comment of Quoniam in omnibus on D. 23 c. 33 (chapter 101 of the Statuta eccle- siae antiqua) also played with the words paranympha and paralympha: ‘Paranymphi sunt consanguinei custodes siue seruitores sponsae qui parant et lympham uel qui stani iuxta lympham. Para enim iuxta lympha aqua interpre- tatur’. Although there is a link between the two texts, the latter says nothing about spilling water over the spouse’s hands.

In short, two statements from the twelfth century attribute to Paucapalea clarifications on two chapters of Gratian’s Decretum that differ from those of the Summa Quoniam in omnibus. If Pacuapalea had written this work, he would have changed his mind.19 20 21 22

19 The manuscript tradition of the DG is inconsistent: cf. Friedberg, Ae. (ed.), Corpus Iuris Canonici, I. Lipsiae 1879 (repr. Graz 1959) nn. 27 and 28 ad locum. Cf. also Viejo-Ximénez, J. M., La ricezione del diritto romano nel diritto canonico, in de León, E. - Àlvarez de las Asturias, N. (ed.), La Cultura (n. 7), 157-208, n. 32.

20 As the anonymous interlinear gloss ad locum in Köln, Dom- und Diözesanbibliothek, 127, fol. 13ra, lin. 3: 7. ius naturale’. Cf. also Friedberg, Ae. (ed.), Corpus Iuris Canonici (n. 19), n. 27 ad locum (‘i. ius naturale’ or ‘i. ius nature’).

21 ‘i. aequitatem rüdem et incompositam’ is an anonymous gloss (inserted in the main text) in Köln, Dom- und Diözesanbibliothek, 127, fol. 13ra, lin. 3, and in Köln, Dom- und Diözesanbibliothek, 128, fol. 14va, lin. 11.

22 Appendix II.5 offers another doubtful attribution that has not been considered by modern scholars. According to a marginal gloss in Köln, Dom und Diözesanbibliothek, 128, Paucapalea explained ratio (D. 1 c. 5) as usum. The SQO’s parallel comment says that ratio is consuetudo (two times) or ‘consuetudine consensu utentium approbata’ (one time). The information is relevant for two reasons: (i) A. consuetudo’ is an interlineal gloss above ratio in Köln, Dom- und Diözesanbibliothek, 127, fol. 9rb, lin. 28; and (ii) in the margin of the same fol. at the height of D. 1 d. p. c. 5 another gloss says: ‘ratione i. respecta rationis. uel ratione i. consuetudine.’ (Köln, Dom- und Diözesanbibliothek, 128, fol. 9rb). The SQO is closer to the anonymous interlinear and marginal glosses of Köln, Dom- und Diözesanbibliothek, 127, than to the ‘Paucapalea’ gloss of Köln, Dom- und Diözesanbibliothek, 128.