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

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

THE SUMMA QU ONI AM IN OMNIBUS REVISITED

161

terials (although he also used new ones). Schulte’s 1890 edition does not reflect this distinctive characteristic of the book.

The SQO is a compendium of the interpretative methods used by the first decretists: glosses, summaries, additions, allegationes, introductiones, conti- nuationes and even solutiones contrariorum. In the work coexist old and new teachings. Some of them date back to Gratian and to his first disciple, Paucapa- lea. Others come from anonymous teachers, who worked in Bologna right after the completion of the Decretum (or even during its making). The author of these teachings and the author of the Summa are different people. The SQO is the product of a School.

Some of the most recent fragments of the work were written after 1146. Some of them appear in books dated in the second half of the fifties. Although the relationship between Quoniam in omnibus and these writings is not yet clear, the possible use of a common source allows us to think that the making of the Summa occurs in the mid-fifties of the twelfth century.

Should we then change the date of the composition of Hugo’s Summa, the Stroma Rolandi, Stephan of Tournai’s Summa and the Summa Parisiensisl I don’t think so. The relationship between these writings should not be understood as literary dependencies. Writers could have used the same stock.

APPENDIX I

Provisional list of manuscripts32 A. Complete manuscripts

[1] Admont, Stiftsbibliothek, 389 = Ad*

LITERATURE: F. Maassen, Paucapalea. Ein Beitrag zur Literaturgeschichte des canonischen Rechts im Mittelalter, Wien 1859 (SBWAW Phil.- Hist.- Classe 31), 41, 51-56, 58-70; J. F. von Schulte, Die Geschichte der Quellen und Literatur des Canonischen Rechts von Gratian bis auf Papst Gregor IX, Stuttgart 1875 (reprint New Jersey 2000), 112 n. 17; J.F. von Schulte (Ed.), Die Summa (n. 1), vii: XIIth century; J. Wichner, Catalogus codicum manuscripto- rum Admonatensis, Admont 1887 / 1888: XIIth century; S. Kuttner, Repertorium (n. 2), 125; J. M. Viejo-Ximénez, Dos escritos (n. 5), 285-289.

32 The present list is the result of a bibliographical review. It includes thirteen complete and five fragmentary copies. Weigand, R., Paucapalea (n. 10), 143-144, speaks of fifteen quite complete and four fragmentary witnesses, but gives no list. An asterisk * highlights the manuscripts that I have seen thus far.