Collectio canonum Sanblasiana

The following is an earlier version of a section from Chapter 5 of my dissertation, 'Canon law collections in England ca 600–1066: the manuscript evidence'.

No edition currently available (but see the transcription of MS Ko offered below). Conciliar canons are collated from five of the seven major witnesses by C. H. Turner in his Ecclesiae occidentalis monumenta iuris antiquissima, canonum et conciliorum graecorum interpretationes latinae, 2 vols in 9 parts (Oxford, 1899–1939; hereafter EOMIA), under the siglum 'S'. The CCHA.451 component is collated from five witnesses by E. Schwartz in his Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum, series prima, 4 vols in 14 parts, vol. 4 parts 1 and 3 ed. J. Straub (Berlin and Leipzig, 1927–1984; hereafter ACO), under the siglum 'B'. The Symmachiana component (SD1) is collated from all manuscripts by E. Wirbelauer in his Zwei Päpste in Rom: der Konflikt zwischen Laurentius und Symmachus (498–514). Studien und Texte, Quellen und Forschungen zur antiken Welt 16 (Munich, 1993), pp. 228–300.


Table 1: The manuscripts of Coll.Sanb.
Sigla Shelfmark Date Medieval Provenance Previous sigla (Turner/Schwartz/Wirbelauer)
Ko Cologne, Erzbischöfliche Diözesan- und Dombibliothek, Codex 213 s. viii1, York?; Lindisfarne?; Ireland?; Echternach?; Cologne? Metz by s. viii3/3?; Cologne by s. viiiex/ixin?, certainly by s. xvi Y/Bc/K
Pl olim Cheltenham, Phillipps collection, MS 17849 s. viiiex, northern Italy Reichenau until no later than s. xixmed P/-/Ma
Lc Lucca, Biblioteca Capitolare Feliniana, 490 s. viiiex–ixin, Lucca Z/Bl/L1
Colb Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, Lat. 1455 s. ix3/4–4/4, Reims region -/-/P3
P Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, Lat. 3836 s. viii2, Corbie region unknown, but in the Bibliotheca Colbertina by s. xviii1/3 X/Bp/P1
P4 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, Lat. 4279 s. ixmed, western Francia -/-/P2
Sp Saint Paul's Abbey in Lavanttal, Stiftsbibliothek, Codex 7/1 s. viiimed–2, (northern?) Italy S/Bb/S

Digital images of MS Ko are available through the Codices electronici ecclesiae Coloniensis Web site.

Transcription: Transcription of MS Ko.

Contents: The 'chapters' of the Sanblasiana (Coll.Sanb.) are not numbered in any extant witness. Numbering has been supplied to this contents list, and used in the discussion below purely for ease of reference, and should not be construed as having any basis in the manuscript tradition. The list is based on the contents and arrangement of material in Ko. Corresponding folios in Ko are given in parentheses. Note that the contents of this collection differ slightly from witness to witness. Contents listed below that are unique to Ko are listed with a '†' preceding, and are not given a number; contents that are also found in other, but not all, Coll.Sanb. witnesses, and contents whose order differs in other witnesses, are preceded by '*'.

Table 2: Contents of Coll.Sanb. by chapter
Coll.Sanb. chapter Document(s) (fols in MS Ko)
I *Dionysian preface (versio II)1 (1r–2v)
II * Can.apost.2 (2v–10r)
III Nicaean metrical preface + shorter Nicaean preface + CNIC.325 (versio Isidori) + subscription list (10r–18v)
IV CANC.314 (versio Isid.vulg.) (19r–25r)
V CNEO.315 (versio Isid.vulg.) (25r–27r)
VI synodal letter (versio Isid.vulg.) + CGAN.355 (versio Isid.vulg.) (27r–31r)3
VII CCAR.419 (25 May preamble4 + canons [recension B] + 25 May conclusion5 + 25 May subscriptions6 + synodal letter to Pope Boniface I ['Quoniam domino']) + Regula formatarum7 + synodal letter of Carthage (424×425) to Pope Celestine I (31r–51r)
VIII CCHA.451 (versio prisca) + subscription list (51r–59r)
IX Constantinopolitan preface (versio prisca) + CCON.381 (versio prisca) + subscription list (59r–62r)
X CSAR.347 + subscription list (62r–69v)
XI synodal letter (versio prisca)8 + CANT.328 (versio prisca) + subscription list (69v–76r)
XII Symmachiana SD1–SK1 (76r–81r)
XIII Symmachiana SD1–SL (81r–84r)
XIV Symmachiana SD1–SX (84r–85v)
XV Symmachiana SD1–SP (85v–88v)
XVI Symmachiana SD1–SM (88v–94v)
XVII DSIR.384.2559 (94v–101r)
XVIII DBON.418.353 (101r–102r)
XIX rescript of Imp. Honorius to Pope Boniface I ('Scripta beatitudinis')10 (102r–v)
XX DZOS.417.339 (102v–104r)
XXI DCEL.422.37111 (104v–105r)
XXII DCEL.422.369 (105r–108v)
XXIII DINN.401.286 (108v–113r)
†DSIR.384.260 (113r–114v)12
XXIV DINN.401.293 (114v–118r)
XXV DINN.401.303 (118r–123r)
XXVI DLEO.440.544 (123v–128v)
XXVII DLEO.440.410 (shorter version) (128v–132r)
XXVIII DLEO.440.398 (132v–134r)
XXIX DLEO.440.399 (134r–135r)
XXX Chalcedonian definition of faith13 (135r–137v)
XXXI Nicaean definition of faith + CROM.378 (first recension)14 (137v–140r)
XXXII De fide Nicena/Alter libellus fidei15 (140r–141r)
XXXIII the Anti-Arian formula 'Nos patrem et filium'16 (141r)
XXXIV synodal letter of CSAR.347 to Pope Julius I17 (141r–143r)

MS Ko ends with c. XXXIV. The following documents, not found in Ko, can be found in all other Coll.Sanb. witnesses (except Pl and P4),18 unless otherwise noted in footnotes. Page numbers in parentheses refer to Friedrich Maassen's description of Coll.Sanb. in his Geschichte. A '†' in Table 3 means that the document is found in only one manuscript witness, while a '*' means that the document is found in several, though not all, witnesses.

Table 3: Coll.Sanb. chapters not found in MS Ko
Coll.Sanb. chapter Document(s) (pp. in Maassen's Geschichte)
XXXV DGEL.492.63619 (pp. 507–08)
XXXVI DGEL.492.675 (pp. 507–08)
†DINN.401.31120 (p. 509)
XXXVII *Decretum Gelasianum de libris recipiendis et non recipiendis (DGEL.492.†700)21 (pp. 508–09)
†DGEL.492.674)22 (p. 509)
Capitula sancti Augustini in urbem Romam23 (p. 509)

Overview: According to one scholar's recent assessment, Coll.Sanb. 'holds a prominent place among the historically organized pre-Carolingian canon law collections.'24 Unfortunately, relatively little research has been done on this collection in the last hundred years, and much remains to be learned about its origins, design and development. The scholar who has worked most recently on the collection is Eckhard Wirbelauer. His research on Coll.Sanb., particularly on its Symmachiana component, throws interesting light on the possible political and ideological conditions under which Coll.Sanb. may have been produced.25 Wirbelauer's findings will be considered in detail below; however, it must be signalled at the outset that Wirbelauer's terminology, wherein he refers to the Coll.Sanb. tradition as the 'Collectio canonum Italica'―which is at best unhelpful, at worst needlessly confusing26―will not be adopted here.27

Coll.Sanb. is not quite so ancient as either Coll.Quesn. or Coll.Dion. Large parts of Coll.Sanb. are, as will be seen, based on translations (known as 'priscan') of the Greek canons that were made some time after those translations (known as 'Isidorian') used in Coll.Quesn. Moreover, and again as will be seen, several passages in Coll.Sanb. have been lifted from Dionysius's collection, and so Coll.Sanb. cannot antedate that work.28 Finally, since Coll.Sanb. contains a full complement of forgeries from Pope Symmachus's pontificate (498–514), at least in its present form Coll.Sanb. cannot have been compiled earlier than that period. So much for termini post quos. A terminus ante quem is much more difficult to establish, since the earliest extant manuscripts of Coll.Sanb. date from the early eighth century. Two collections derivative of Coll.Sanb., the Colbertina and the Diessensis prima (see below), date to before the eighth century, but it is difficult to say by how much: the Diessensis prima seems to have originated in the seventh century, while the Colbertina may be as early as the middle of the sixth century or as late as the eighth.29 At present, therefore, it seems impossible to establish on textual grounds a firm date before which Coll.Sanb. must have been composed. Previous attempts to date the collection have rather depended on speculation based on its contents. Earlier research was content simply to date Coll.Sanb. to a time shortly after and a place near the origin of the most recent document contained therein, namely the Symmachiana. Accordingly, it has long been assumed that Coll.Sanb. was compiled, like so many other early medieval collections, in Italy, probably in Rome, sometime during the pontificate of Pope Hormisdas (514–523). Recent research by Eckhard Wirbelauer has supported this date,30 and has at the same time deepened our understanding of the connection of Coll.Sanb. to the controversy (498–507) surrounding Pope Symmachus's pontificate.

The details of this controversy―which involved competing claims to the papal throne by Laurence (supported by the East) and by Symmachus (supported by the West)―can be read about in the ASCL article on the Symmachiana and the Constitutum Silvestri. It is important to note here that the conflict was in large part occasioned during the last decades of the fifth century by the different attitudes held by popes Felix III and Gelasius I (hardliners) and Pope Anastasius II (who was conciliatory) towards the Acacian schism, which turned on Constantinople's rejection of the Tomus Leonis and the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon in 451 (CCHA.451).31 Wirbelauer, noticing the predominance of Leonine and Chalcedonian material in Coll.Sanb., has suggested that the compiler of Coll.Sanb. was a supporter of the Gelasian tack, and was generally antagonistic towards reconciliation with the unrepentant Constantinopolitan church. On the other hand, the eschewal in Coll.Sanb. of all material relating to the Acacian schism (in direct contrast to other contemporary Italian collections, like Coll.Quesn. and the Collectio Vaticana) would seem to significantly undermine this theory; this has been explained by Wirbelauer, however, as a deliberate decision on the part of the Coll.Sanb. compiler in order to prevent it from inspiring 'unwanted recollection' of the schism in the collection's episcopal audience.32 If true, this points strongly to the period immediately following the Acacian schism and the settlement of the conflict between Symmachus and Laurence as the most likely time for Coll.Sanb.'s compilation. Wirbelauer thus concludes his analysis of Coll.Sanb. by characterizing it as a 'cleverly balanced work of a moderate supporter of Symmachus ... (as Hormisdas was).'33 Wirbelauer thus suggests that Coll.Sanb. was a product of Pope Symmachus's faction, who, following Symmachus's pontificate, sought to be reconciled to their political opponents by, in part, suppressing the controversial issues that had given rise to the recent conflicts. Wirbelauer's assessment of the origins of Coll.Sanb. seems to have found favour with historians like Kate Blair-Dixon, who has described Coll.Sanb. as 'a full-blown Symmachan production', and Lester L. Field, Jr., who has called Coll.Sanb. a 'Symmachan recension' of the fifth century Collectio prisca (on which see below).34

In addition to its origins, Wirbelauer has also studied the structure of Coll.Sanb., which he believes is based on very definite organizational principles―in marked contrast to the opinion of Maassen who, over a century ago, remarked that 'ist die Anordnung der Sammlung ziemlich planlos.'35 Coll.Sanb. as a whole is neatly divided into four parts: conciliar canons (Coll.Sanb. cc. III–XI); Symmachiana (cc. XII–XVI); decretals (cc. XVII–XXIX); and dogmatic statements (cc. XXX–XXXIII).36 The series of decretals may not be chronological,37 but this probably only indicates that there is some as yet unknown principle of organization behind their arrangement. Wirbelauer believes he may have discovered this principle: Coll.Sanb. was, he suggests, compiled as a sort of endowment gifted by the papacy to newly ordained bishops.38 It is, he says, 'nothing other than a manual of canon law for the use of a newly-elected Italian bishop',39 and one which particularly emphasizes the primacy of the pope in all matters spiritual.40 Wirbelauer arrives at this conclusion by considering the form and significance of the final text of Coll.Sanb., namely Pope Gelasius's Formula constitutionis (GEL.492.675) for newly-consecrated bishops, the earliest witness for which is Coll.Sanb. itself.41 Wirbelauer's theory has important implications for the early history of canon law in the West; it suggests that during (and possibly even after) the so-called Gelasian renaissance, the papacy overlooked competing collections like Coll.Quesn. and Coll.Dion. and explicitly endorsed Coll.Sanb. as the 'code' to which it desired Western bishops to adhere.42 Unfortunately, Wirbelauer's theory as currently formulated has its weaknesses, the most serious of which is that it rests upon the position and wording of a single document in the collection, namely DGEL.492.675, which is found in only some of the witnesses of Coll.Sanb., and then invariably holds a precarious position at the collection's end, after all other canonical and dogmatic material.43 That DGEL.492.675 is found at the end of Coll.Sanb., almost as if it were added as an afterthought, does not inspire much confidence that it formed part of, let alone the most important part of, the original compiler's plan.44 The jury, then, is still out on this particular theory, and will probably remain so at least until the collection is edited critically.45

Source, affiliate, and derivative collections: Maassen classed Coll.Sanb. with three other chronological collections―the collectiones Vaticana, Iustelliana, and Teatina (i.e. the Chieti collection)―which arose in Italy at about the same time.46 While each collection in Maassen's Italian group is quite different from the other in contents and organization, all four have a number of important features in common; for example: each contains CCAR.419;47 three (excepting the Teatina) contain a version of CSAR.347 that is peculiar to these collections alone;48 and three (excepting the Iustelliana) contain elements of the Symmachiana.49 Most importantly, however, all four collections contain eastern canons in their so-called prisca or 'ancient' translation.50 By this feature more than any other are the four collections of the Italian group to be distinguished from the two other major collections that arose in Italy around this time, namely Coll.Quesn. (which contains eastern canons in the so-called 'Isidorian' translation) and Coll.Dion. (which, of course, contains Dionysius's translations). The origins of the versio prisca―which, like the versio Isidori, is in fact a primitive Latin canon law collection, now lost―are mysterious, but it seems to have appeared sometime in the second half of the fifth century, and almost certainly in Italy, though the poor style of the Latin translations (which, Turner says, borders on 'entire incompetence') may indicate an origin outside of Rome.51 Turner showed that the Teatina is the closest of Maassen's Italian group to the original lost versio (or Collectio) prisca,52 while Coll.Sanb. and the Vaticana are further removed from it by modification and accretion, specifically in the case of Coll.Sanb. by the inclusion of several passages from Coll.Dion. and by the addition of entire councils from the versio Isidori tradition.53 But despite their differences, the four collections in Maassen's Italian group―perhaps better referred to as the 'priscan' group54―collectively preserve features of the lost Collectio prisca.55 Interestingly, Wirbelauer has shown that the exemplar of the Collectio Teatina, the best surviving representative of the Collectio prisca, arose as a direct result of the controversy between Laurentius and Symmachus.56 Wirbelauer does not identify the Teatina's exemplar with the Prisca itself; indeed, he scarcely mentions the Prisca. But might this be the implication? That is to say, could the Collectio prisca itself have had its origins in this conflict?57 Such a hypothesis might explain why the 'priscan' translations are so appallingly poor, for the propagandists that worked in support of Symmachus are known to have been poor stylists.58 It would also go towards explaining why certain materials forged during the dispute―the so-called Symmachiana―make up an important segment of two derivatives of the Prisca, namely the Vaticana and Coll.Sanb.59 Again, we will likely not be able to confirm or deny speculation of this sort until such time as critical editions of these collections have been prepared.

Unlike the other collections from the Italian/'priscan' group, it has long been noted that Coll.Sanb. very early on spread out from Italy to influence several compilations that took shape in Gaul.60 The first of these is the Collectio Colbertina (Colb), compiled no earlier than the mid sixth century by combining the entirety of Coll.Sanb. with material from other collections, notably Coll.Quesn.61 The second is the first of several collections found in the Diessensis manuscript (Munich, Bayerische Saatsbibliothek, Clm 5508 [s. viiiex, Salzburg], fols 1–130), whose seventh-century exemplar was, or was dependent upon, Coll.Sanb.62 A third is an unidentified collection found in The Hague, Museum Meermanno-Westreenianum, 10.B.4 (s. viiiex2, Bourges?); this manuscript, which is the earliest copy63 of the sixth-century Gallic Collectio Sancti Mauri―a collection with strong ties to Coll.Quesn.―contains an insert (fols 31–53, copied ca 800) which is alien to the original manuscript and to the Sancti Mauri itself.64 The insert contains a dossier of canonical documents, two of which have been drawn from the Coll.Sanb.65 The exact nature of the relationship of this insert to Coll.Sanb. has, to my knowledge, yet to be investigated in detail.

Textual tradition: Though they are derivative, both the Diessensis and Colbertina have been considered by scholars as witnesses of the Coll.Sanb. tradition because they contain so much of the material of their parent collection.66 The primary witnesses of Coll.Sanb. are six, however: Ko, Lc, P, P4, Pl, and Sp. Two of these, Pl and P4, are now incomplete and want a great part of the series of decretals, and all of the dogmatic material, found at the end of the collection.67 Coll.Sanb., which has never been edited before,68 was named by Maassen after the manuscript which he believed most closely represented the collection in its original state, namely Sp, called codex Sanblasianus because it had rested until 1809 in the library of St Blaise's Abbey in the Black Forest. Whether or not Sp does in fact 'come closest to the original form of the collection'69 remains to be proven, especially because one manuscript (Pl) has come to light since Maassen's day which may have a stronger claim to this distinction. To understand why we must consider the tradition in closer detail.

Based on a collation of its conciliar canons, Turner distinguished two families in the tradition of Coll.Sanb., each of which goes back to a common exemplar, call them α and β: to the first family (α) belong Sp and Lc;70 to the second (β) belong Ko and P.71 Essentially the same division in Coll.Sanb.'s tradition (α vs. β) has also be shown to exist for one of Coll.Sanb.'s decretals,72 as well as for Coll.Sanb.'s Symmachiana components (= Coll.Sanb. cc. XII–XVI).73 It may be assumed, therefore, that this same basic stemmatic division between LcSp and KoP holds true throughout the collection. Pl, Turner noted, shares readings with both families.74 The place of Colb and P4 in the tradition is not yet known, since Turner did not collate them, though the latter may belong to the second (β) family.75 On the one hand, according to Turner, the 'true reading' is found more often in the second (β) family.76 On the other hand, the readings of the Vaticana are closest to those of the first (α) family, which may argue in favour of that family's precedence.77 Obviously, on present evidence, we cannot decide which tradition preserves the more ancient readings and form of Coll.Sanb. This has not stopped historians from basing their discussions of Coll.Sanb. on manuscripts from the α family, as if Maassen's opinion of the value of Sp were a foregone conclusion.

That Pl shares readings with both families may indicate one of two things: that it represents a contaminated tradition; or that it represents a purer state in the tradition, one that existed before it split into two families. While it is impossible to tell without further research,78 the following observation suggests that the latter possibility may indeed prove true. In all witnesses of Coll.Sanb. the prisca version of CCHA.451 has in three places been contaminated with readings from the Dionysian version.79 Of crucial significance here is the report by von Euw and Plotzek, that in Pl one, possibly even all three (von Euw-Plotzek's report is ambiguous), of these Dionysian substitutions have been 'inserted by another hand'.80 If this is true, then (depending on the date of the hand making the insertions) Pl is either an early copy from which all other extant Coll.Sanb. copies derive, or a member of an entirely different recension of Coll.Sanb. which had prisca readings for CCHA.451 throughout, and was later corrected against a copy of the vulgate recension of Coll.Sanb. This latter possibility, while not impossible, seems extremely unlikely. Therefore―assuming von Euw-Plotzek's report is accurate―one can hypothesize not only 1) that the Dionysian readings we now see in Coll.Sanb. are merely an eighth-century augmentation, but also 2) that Pl is the exemplar from which all extant witnesses of Coll.Sanb. derive. Here it seems significant that three of the four earliest witnesses, namely Pl, Lc and Sp, originated in northern Italy,81 and that of these two, Pl and Sp, also have an early Reichenau provenance, and therefore very probably share a similar early history;82―perhaps Pl and Sp even emerged from the same scribal area. These issues are of pressing importance to the early history of canon law in the West, and to the history of Coll.Sanb. in particular. Moreover, that Pl may have some connection to Anglo-Saxon activities on the Continent (see the ASCL description of this manuscript) makes its place in the Coll.Sanb. tradition of great importance to students of Anglo-Saxon history. Obviously, von Euw-Plotzek's report needs to be corroborated as soon as possible. Unfortunately, I am unaware of the present whereabouts of Pl.

The Cologne manuscript (Ko): text: The peculiarities of Ko have long been noted by scholars, who have long questioned the origin of the manuscript and its place within the Coll.Sanb. tradition.83 As to textual tradition, the first question to be answered is whether or not Ko's Dionysian preface and copy of Can.apost. are part of the original collection or are merely later interpolations. Besides serving as the introductory material to Coll.Sanb. in Ko, these two documents are also found at the beginning of P4, where they are followed by the Dionysian version of CLAO.300, then SEA, c. 7, and then CORL.511.16; then follows the rubric 'In nomine sanctae trinitatis incipiunt canones de universis provinciis', which introduces Coll.Sanb. proper.84 If not for Ko, these introductory documents in P4 (a mid ninth-century manuscript) could easily be discounted as later accretions to the tradition.85 We may still perhaps discount P4's CLAO.300 (and certainly its SEA and CORL.511 chapters) as an eighth or ninth century accretion, but together Ko and P4 show us that the preface and Can.apost. were , since the early eighth century, part of at least one branch of the Coll.Sanb. tradition. On current evidence it is impossible to tell whether these Dionysian additions go back further in the tradition than this, though the outcome of further research on Pl may shed some light on this question.860 Unfortunately, what is currently known about the attitude of the original compiler of Coll.Sanb. towards Dionysius's work is equivocal with respect to this question. While the compiler clearly did not shy away from poaching phrases, and even in one case an entire canon, from Dionysius's collection,87 he nevertheless deliberately avoided using Dionysius's translation of CLAO.300 and (possibly) his translation of Can.apost. in his own collection (note that neither of these texts were available in the Prisca). As Wirbeluaer has suggested, this reluctance on the part of the compiler to embrace openly the work of Dionysius may have been due to the anti-Symmachan stance that Dionysius seems to have taken during that pope's conflict with Laurence.88

Turner observed that, in addition to the conspicuously Dionysian material at its beginning, Ko exhibits many peculiar readings not found in other Coll.Sanb. witnesses.89 Specifically, he noted that for CANT.328, Ko agrees more closely with the Collectio Teatina (that is to say with a 'purer' prisca tradition of this council), and that for CNIC.325, Ko agrees more closely with Coll.Quesn. and the collectiones Maassenianae, chiefly the Wirceburgensis representative of that group (that is to say with a nearly 'pure' versio Isidori tradition of this council).90 Klaus Zechiel-Eckes, too, found Ko to be 'contaminated' with readings from other canon law collections, noting in particular that a phrase in Ko's CNIC.325.10 is taken from the Interpretatio Caeciliani.91 To the list of Ko's apparent contaminations, or deviations from the Coll.Sanb. tradition, one can also add the following: Ko's version of CANC.314.10 (= canon number 9 in Ko) incorporates, uniquely among Coll.Sanb. witnesses, a phrase otherwise found only in Coll.Quesn. and the Corbeiensis; and Ko's version of CCON.381 contains several passages of substantial length that are unique to this witness, including (in CCON.381.5) additional material translated from the Greek. Finally, for the Symmachiana component, Wirbelauer observed that Ko's exemplar seems to have been compared against a precursor to the Vaticana/Coll.Dion.-Hadr.-aucta tradition.92 Such a high incidence of 'recensional rupture' ('Versionsbrüchen')―along with the fact that many readings unique to Ko's text (especially its copy of the Symmachiana) appear originally to have been glosses―led Wirbelauer to suggest that the tradition represented by Ko must have been continually revised by comparison with other collections, and ultimately to conclude that the exemplar of Ko itself had been 'already positively littered with glosses' ('schon mit Glossen übersät').93

In sum, therefore, Ko represents a tradition that has undergone a considerable degree of contamination from a variety of different competing collections, most of which seem to be taken from collections that originated and circulated primarily in Italy and Southern Gaul. Given that this same degree of contamination is not found in other Coll.Sanb. witnesses, it seems safe to assume that the tradition represented in Ko evolved in a environment that was significantly distinct from those through which other copies of the collection passed. This environment need not have been geographically very different, but it must at least have included: a) a number of competing collections circulating at the same time; and b) ecclesiastics who were keen to study, and in the process cross-fertilize, these several traditions. That one of these competing collections was Coll.Quesn. seems a safe bet. That another was the Teatina is suggested by Ko's version of CANT.328. That Ko seems to have been so susceptible to contamination from other collections argues, moreover, in favour of Ko's Dionysian preface and Can.apost. being later additions to the this particular traditional branch rather components of the original collection. That many of the distinctive aspects of the tradition represented by Ko arose in Italy or Southern Gaul is probable; it is here, after all, during the sixth and seventh centuries that most of the collections mentioned above that are thought to have influenced Ko's exemplar circulated.94 Indeed, it has been suggested on more than one occasion that Ko's exemplar was the product of an Italian scriptorium.95 And it was perhaps in Southern Gaul in the eighth century that a Ko-type manuscript was used by the compiler of the Collectio 400 capitulorum.96 On the other hand, that Ko originated (almost certainly; see below) in Northumbria leads one to assume that at least part of the Ko tradition also evolved in an Anglo-Saxon context. This hypothesis is supported by the strong likelihood that Coll.Quesn.―one of the collections against which Ko's exemplar was compared―was highly favoured by early Anglo-Saxon ecclesiastics (for discussion of the history and influence of Coll.Quesn. in Anglo-Saxon England, see the ASCL article on this collection). It may also be supported by the fact that the recension of the Theodorian penitential compiled by the anonymous Northumbrian discipulus (PTHU.700) borrows verbatim from the Ko tradition of Coll.Sanb. (see below). That the sort of scholarly-canonistic atmosphere required to account for the textual cross-fertilization we see in Ko existed in Northumbria at this time is plainly evidenced by the Dialogus of Archbishop Ecgberht of York (for discussion of the Dialogus, including its intensive use of papal decretals, see the ASCL article on this work), and by the many summary glosses added to the margins of Ko by the main scribe.97 These glosses, which seem to be unique to Ko,98 show a level of textual engagement beyond the merely superficial. Someone, probably Anglo-Saxon and certainly―given the incredibly luxurious construction of the manuscript―of some ecclesiastical distinction and reputation, took a deep interest in the content and meaning of the canons transmitted in this collection. Based on the nature of these glosses, it seems entirely possible that the glossator had an abiding interest, perhaps even some degree of involvement, in the controversies surrounding Bishop Wilfrid in the last decades of the seventh century.99

The Cologne manuscript (Ko): origin: The scribe of Ko wrote a heavy, round half-uncial characteristic of that in use in Insular centres of the early eighth century―'Insular half-uncial phase II'.100 This script was practised with perfection at the Irish-influenced monastic centres of Iona, Lindisfarne and Echternach.101 Both the script and exquisite decoration of Ko has led art historians to associate it with the Lindisfarne, Durham, Durrow, Echternach and Cambridge-London Gospel-books; the similarity between the decorative initials and zoomorphic ornamentation in these Gospel-books and those in Ko has been noted in particular.102 Unfortunately, the exact origin(s) of these Gospel-books is a matter of contention among scholars; the possibilities range from Northumbria to Echternach to Ireland, with various monasteries in each as candidates.103 These books therefore cannot be used to determine a definitive origin for Ko, except to place it in an Insular-influenced centre in the North during the early eighth century. It has been pointed out, however, that the rich zoomorphic decoration in Ko contrasts with the absence of such decoration in the 'Echternach group',104 which may help localize Ko to a centre in England or Ireland, rather than on the Continent. Further in support of an Insular origin is Ko's arrangement into quires of ten folios, a feature shared with certain seventh-century Irish and Northumbrian manuscripts.105 One peculiar feature of Ko's script may indicate a Northumbrian origin: the scribe used an elegant pointed (verging on cursive) Insular minuscule for the last three (sometimes one or two) lines of each page. This scribal phenomenon is apparently unique to Ko.106 The same minuscule script is also used in Ko to copy out names in the catalogues of bishops present at the councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, Sardica, etc., and also, occasionally, for rubrics. And once, on folio 83r, it is used to copy out the text of the entire page. Both of these types of script―half-uncial and insular minuscule―are known to have been used at Jarrow in the late seventh-century.107 Moreover, the combination of Insular minuscule with higher grades of Insular script (like 'hybrid minuscule' and half-uncial) within the same codex also occurs in a number of seventh and eighth-century manuscripts linked to Lindisfarne and Northumbria.108 The presence of an eighth-century Old English scratched gloss―'hroemgum' on fol. 122v, glossing 'conpotis uotis' from DINN.401.303, c. 7 (= Coll.Sanb. c. XXV)―along with the famously misleading entry 'SIGIBERTUS SCRIPSIT' (on which see below) at the bottom of the last folio (fol. 143r), strongly suggest that the immediate context was Anglo-Saxon, as opposed to Irish.

Wherever it originated, Ko was in Germany within a century after its creation, as it bears at least one Old High German scratched gloss which has been dated s. viiimed.109 If indeed Ko had been copied in Northumbria instead of at Echternach or Ireland, then its journey across the Channel to the Rhineland should probably be seen as a consequence of English missionary activity in and around the area throughout the eighth century. Attempts to place the manuscript in Cologne by Archbishop Hildebald's time (ca 785–818) based on the 'SIGIBERTUS' entry found both in this manuscript as well as in Cologne, Erzbischöfliche Diözesan- und Dombibliothek, Codex 212 (the Collectio canonum Coloniensis) ultimately fail due to our ignorance of the identity of the Sigeberht in question and of when and where it was that his name was added to these manuscripts.110 While some scholars have suggested that Sigeberht was a Northumbrian working in Cologne's scriptorium under Archbishop Hildebald, there is simply no evidence to support this.111 What Sigeberht's annotations do show is that both Cologne 212 and Ko share a common yet unknown early history, and that they were together possibly even before they reached Cologne, whenever that may have been. Heinrich Tiefenbach has made the compelling suggestion that the Sigeberht in question was the same whom Angilramn (bishop of Metz [768–791] and Charlemagne's palace chaplain) commissioned to produce a copy of the Collectio Teatina (on which see above); Vatican, Reg. lat. 1997―the only extant witness of the Teatina―is an apograph of the manuscript so commissioned.112 If all three Sigeberhts are indeed the same person, then this strongly suggests that all three lawbooks―Ko, Cologne 212, and the exemplar of Vatican, Reg. lat. 1997―were in the vicinity of Metz during Angilramn's episcopacy. In fact, the Old High German gloss in Ko can be linked, on relatively strong linguistic grounds, to the area around Metz.113 Tiefenbach has further suggested, again compellingly, that after Angilramn's death in 791, all three manuscripts passed into the possession of Hildebald, bishop (and later archbishop) of Cologne and successor to Angilramn as the royal chaplain.114 Should Tiefenbach's suggestions about the provenance of Ko prove to be true, one would like then to explain how it was that Ko, produced in an Insular scriptorium, came to be in Metz in the second half of eighth century, at most only a few decades after its creation. But this may now be impossible to know.115

Use in England: Along with Coll.Dion. and Pope Gregory the Great's Libellus responsionum, Coll.Sanb. stands out as one of the most enduringly influential canonical documents in the history of Anglo-Saxon canon law. Besides Coll.Dion., Coll.Sanb. is the only collection whose tranmission in England before the tenth century can be proven and for whose use in Anglo-Saxon England there is substantial evidence that is not entirely manuscript-based. Exactly how Coll.Sanb. came to England is, unfortunately, not yet known, nor is it clear to exactly what extent Coll.Sanb. was known to Anglo-Saxon ecclesiastics or used by Anglo-Saxon councils. Nevertheless, sporadic yet tell-tale signs of its influence can be observed in Anglo-Saxon documents dating from as early as the seventh century to as late as the eleventh. The remainder of this article will lay out the evidence for the use of Coll.Sanb. in seventh- and eighth-century England; for evidence of the use of Coll.Sanb. in later Anglo-Saxon England, see the ASCL article on the Symmachiana and the Constitutum Silvestri.

Use in the Leiden gloss tradition: At least one copy of Coll.Sanb. may already have been in Canterbury by the end of the seventh century, where it probably formed part of the library of Theodore and Hadrian's school. The evidence for this comes from medieval collections of Latin glosses, or glossaries. In 1986, Michael Lapidge demonstrated that Leiden, Bibliotheek der Rijksuniversiteit, Voss. lat. Q. 69 (s. viii/ix, St Gall), transmits a glossary tradition that originated at Theodore and Hadrian's Canterbury school.116 This discovery is of great importance to the study of Anglo-Saxon canon law, for Leiden 69 begins with over 100 alphabetized lemmata keyed to conciliar canons and papal decretals. The Leiden glossary therefore contains a set of glosses indicating something of the nature of the study of canon law at Canterbury at the end of the seventh century; for this reason it is necessary to consider this gloss tradition in some detail.

The Leiden 69 glossary is only one from a family of glossaries―now all found in Continental manuscripts―which derive (directly or indirectly) from teaching texts produced in England in the seventh century at Theodore and Hadrian's school in Canterbury.117 This family or tradition of glossaries is known as the 'Leiden-family', after the Leiden 69 manuscript, which is at present the only glossary from this tradition to have been edited in full.118 According to Lapidge, besides Leiden 69, four other manuscripts from this tradition contain canonical glosses: Fulda, Hessische Landesbibliothek, A.2 (s. x, Lake Constance region); Saint-Omer, Bibliothèque municipale, MS 150 (s.x, Saint-Bertin); Sélestat, Bibliothèque humaniste, MS 7 (100) (s. xin, Reichenau?); and Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, Lat. 2685 (s. ix2, Belgium or Holland).1190 No edition of the glossaries in these four manuscripts is yet available; I have, however, been able to examine a facsimile of the relevant folios (47v–48r) of the Paris 2685 glossary,120 which will serve as the basis of the comparison offered below.

The entire 'Leiden-family' tradition is a muddle. As Lapidge notes, 'of all texts, glossaries are the most prone to scribal interference: to selective copying, interpolation, omission, and so on.'121 As a result, traces of the 'Leiden-family' glossaries 'appear in countless manuscripts in forms so altered as to be beyond recognition.'122 Thus, the wide diffusion of this gloss tradition throughout the medieval West, combined with the mutable nature of the genre itself, means that an as yet undetermined amount of material found in the extant manuscript witnesses is likely to bear no relationship to the original Canterbury glossae collectae which took shape under Theodore; this material will rather represent accretions and additions by later scribes working at other schools, many of which will have been Continental. For the purposes of determining which canon law collections were being used in Theodore and Hadrian's school, these later glossarial accretions to the tradition are irrelevant. In theory, it should be possible to isolate the original collection from the layers of later additions by following a recensionist method of analysis, that is, by collating the canonical glosses from each of the five relevant glossaries in order to determine which glosses they share in common: their commonalities would, theoretically, represent the core of the tradition, that is the original Canterbury glossae collectae. In practice, however, things are not so simple. As Lapidge notes, the original Canterbury text itself may well have been issued in 'various instalments' such that 'it may be misleading to think of a single archetype of the collection.'123 Thus, the complex nature of the 'Leiden-family' tradition is such that it would surely defy conventional recensionist analysis―a method which by its very nature is generally incapable of dealing with scribal interference (or 'contamination') and with textual traditions whose archetypal form is not uniform. Nevertheless, the recensionist approach may be of some value in helping at least to pare away from the original text some of the more obvious later accretions. The following observations on the Canterbury canonical gloss tradition, based as they are on only two of the five surviving witnesses (Leiden 69 and Paris 2685), are therefore offered with all due cautions and caveats in place.

Lapidge was the first to propose that Coll.Sanb. was the main source for the canonical lemmata in the Leiden glossary.124 Ten years after Lapidge's study, however, in an important article of the canonical sources available to Theodore in England, Martin Brett considered the canonical glosses of Leiden 69 and Paris 2685 in greater detail, and rejected Coll.Sanb. as a significant source for both glossaries. Brett examined both the Leiden and Paris glossaries separately, and analysed the probable sources of each glossary as they currently stand. Brett deduced that the canonical lemmata in the Leiden 69 glossary could be best explained as coming from a single collection, namely an enlarged Coll.Dion.II (or early Coll.Dion.-Hadr.),125 specifically one which had been provided with a text of the Chalcedonian creed as found in the Collectio Novariensis concilii Chalcedonensis (Novara, Biblioteca Capitolare, XXX [66]).126 The Paris glossary, too, according to Brett, was influenced predominantly by an enlarged Coll.Dion.II (or, again, early Coll.Dion.-Hadr.), though here he postulated that the source collection had been contaminated in several places by the versio Isidori.127 Brett therefore concluded that 'In Theodore's circle, as the glossaries reflect it, an enlarged version of the second Dionysiana was indeed a central text'.128

While Brett was able to demonstrate with impressive erudition the sources of the Leiden and Paris glossaries as they currently stand, he fails to take sufficient account of the likelihood that these glossaries represent later devolutions of the original Canterbury glossae collectae. Brett's study thus avoids addressing the real crux of the textual problems by giving equal and full weight to both Leiden 69 and Paris 2685 as witnesses to the texts studied at Theodore and Hadrian's school. As has been seen, the entire question of which canon law collections are at the source of the Canterbury gloss tradition is vexed by the fact the glossaries extant today present vastly different texts, representing vastly different paths of textual transmission and contamination.129 The corpora of canonical glosses in the Paris and Leiden glossaries serve as a case in point. Paris 2685 contains far fewer glosses than Leiden 69―the former has 51, the latter more than 160―and arranges its canonical lemmata in roughly sequential order, whereas Leiden 69 has its canonical lemmata arranged into alphabetical groups.130 Moreover, each contains a considerable number of lemmata not shared by the other, and for those that are shared, the corresponding glosses often differ. Finally, Paris draws a significantly greater percentage of lemmata from papal decretals than does Leiden.131 It was on the basis of differences such as these that Lapidge concluded that the Leiden 69 and Paris 2685 glossaries had 'been copied independently from the same collection of materials.'132 Brett's research has identified what sorts of canonical sources might have been available to the scribes who augmented subsequent copies of the Canterbury glossae collectae, but does not necessarily indicate what source(s) the compiler(s) of the original glossae might have drawn upon. Brett's conclusion that an enlarged Coll.Dion.II was a central text in the curriculum Canterbury school's curriculum therefore needs to be reconsidered based on an evaluation of the common core of all canonical lemmata found in the five extant 'Leiden-family' glossaries.

As mentioned above, the 'Leiden-family' glossaries present a host of textual difficulties that make it unlikely that we will ever know for certain exactly which canonical sources were used for the original Canterbury glossae collectae. We may reasonably expect, however, that profitable results will come from a complete collation and analysis of the canonical glosses found in all five of the manuscripts identified by Lapidge.133 While such a collation and analysis would indeed be worthwhile,134 it would involve no small amount of labour. Until such time as such work can be carried out, then, it is hoped that the following observations, in combination with Brett's findings, will serve as an indicator of where more detailed investigations may lead.

From a comparison of the 51 lemmata in the Paris glossary against the over 160 lemmata printed from Leiden 69 by John H. Hessel, only 17 are found to be in common. They are listed in Table 4 according to the order they occur in the Paris glossary. Glosses of individual lemmata are dispensed with unless they help identify the source. The numbering in parentheses in the first column corresponds to Hessel's edition. The 'material' sources listed in the fourth column indicate ultimate, or original, sources whence the corresponding lemma has come; 'formal' sources in the fifth column indicate canon law collections which transmit the relevant material sources.

Table 4: Shared lemmata in Leiden 69 and Paris 2685 glossaries
No. Leiden 69 (Hessel no.) Paris 2685 (fols 47v–48r) Material source Possible formal sources
1 catalocum (XXXIX.68) catalogus Can.apost. 9135 (this text available in Latin only in Dionysius's translations) Found principally in Coll.Dion.II and Coll.Dion.-Hadr., but also in numerous other collections (Maassen lists 14).136 Note that Can.apost. is found in Coll.Sanb. in Ko and P4.
2 obtentu (I.79) sub optentu137 Can.apost. 6, 39/40138 As above, no. 1.
3 aleator (I.1)139 aleatur Can.apost. 42 (rubric), versio Dion.II140 As above, no. 1. Note that this rubric is not found in collections which transmit the Dion.I version of Can.apost.; however, in these collections 'aleator' can be found in title 41 of Can.apost.'s index.141
4 mancipantur (I.70) mancipantur Can.apost. 18142 As above, no. 1.
5 funestis (I.53) funestis CANC.314.3, versio Dion.I/II143 Found principally in Coll.Dion.I/II and Coll.Dion.-Hadr.
6 genuinum decus (I.57) gęnuini Synodal letter of CGAN.355, versio Isidori (both antiqua and vulgata)144 Found in most collections (Turner lists 10) that transmit the versio Isidori of CGAN.355; also in several versions of Coll.Dion.-Hadr. (with Gangran canons in the versio Dion.II).
7 byrrus (I.17) birris CGAN.355.12, versiones Isidori (both antiqua and vulgata) and Dion.I/II145 Found in all collections (Turner lists 14) that transmit the versiones Isidori and Dion.I/II of CGAN.355.12.
8 experiuntur (I.47) experiantur CANT.328.20, versio Dion.I/II146 Found principally in Coll.Dion.I/II and Coll.Dion.-Hadr.
9 arcimandritis (I.14) archimannica Perhaps from the salutation in DHOR.514.800.147 Cf. also the salutations in DLEO.440.426, 444, 449, 454, 457, DSIM.468.574, and DFEL.483.608. Perhaps also from CCON.448, wherein the word occurs often. The salutation for DHOR.514.800 is found in the collectiones Avellana, Dionysiana-Bobiensis, and Coll.Dion.-Hadr.148 The other decretals listed in column 4 have a rather restricted transmission.149 CCON.448 is found in Coll.Quesn., the collectiones Vaticana, Corbeiensis, Coloniensis, and Pithouensis, and the enlarged Coll.Dion.-Hadr.150
10 thia (XXXV.46) THIA CNIC.325.3 in Attici, prisca, Gallo-Hispana, Rufini, and Isidori versiones151 Found in essentially all collections (Turner lists over 15) that transmit CNIC.325 in the versiones listed to the left (with the notable exception of Coll.Quesn.). Note that the versio Attici is found in the Hispana and Coll.Dion.I as part of CCAR.419.152
11 ptochiis (I.91); pitoicis (XXXIX.58) ptocus CCHA.451.8, in versiones Isidori (or Hispana) and Dion.I/II.153 Cf. also 'ptochiorum' in CCHA.451.10, versio Dion.I/II Found in all collections (Schwartz lists 11) that transmit CCHA.451 in the versiones Isidori (or Hispana) and Dion.I/II.
12 stipulatio (I.124) stipulatio Perhaps from the acta of CCAR.419, in which the phrase 'sub adstipulatione litterarum' occurs twice.154 Cf. also 'cum stipulatione jurejurando' in CSEV.619.12. The acta of CCAR.419 are found in numerous collections (Turner lists 11); but note that only the enlarged Coll.Dion.II155 and Coll.Dion.-Hadr. read 'stipulatione' in both instances mentioned in column 4.156 CSEV.619.12 is found in the collectiones Hispana and Sancti Amandi.135
13 absidam (I.6); ante absida (XXXIX.56) absidam [ante praem. in mg.] Perhaps from Ko's version of the Gesta Liberii (SD1–SL); all other versions of this text read 'absis'.158 Cf. also 'ante absidam' in CCAR.397.30c (= Breviarium Hipponense).159 The relevant reading in the Gesta Liberii found only in Ko (Coll.Sanb. c. XIII). CCAR.397.30c transmitted as canon 43(c) of Reg.eccl.Cart.exc. in Coll.Dion.II and Coll.Dion.-Hadr., and as canon 32b of Carthage III in Coll.Hisp.160
14 municipii (XXXIX.61) municipii CROM.465.8.161 Cf. also 'municipiis' in DLEO.440.410, c. 10,162 and CNIC.325.8, versio Dion.I/II163 CROM.465 is found in the collectiones Hispana and Dionysiana-Bobiensis, and Coll.Dion.-Hadr.164 DLEO.440 is found in numerous collections (Maassen lists 11);165 note, however, that Coll.Sanb., Coll.Quesn. and several other collections contain the shorter version of DLEO.440.410, which does not contain the relevant section. The Dionysian translation of CNIC.325 is found principally in Coll.Dion.I/II and its derivatives, including Coll.Dion.-Hadr.
15 philacteria (I.90); filacteria (XXXIX.62) filacteria A common word,166 but perhaps from either CLAO.300.36, versiones Isidori and Dion.I/II (i.e. all versions),167 or DGEL.492.†700, c. 5.8.168 Cf. also 'phylacteriis' in CROM.721.12.169 CLAO.300 found in numerous collections (Turner lists over 15). Note that the versio Dion.I/II of CLAO.300.36 is found in Coll.Sanb. in P4. Note also that the versio Isidori of CLAO.300.36 is also transmitted as c. 68 of CAGD.506 in Coll.Hisp.170 DGEL.492.†700 is found in numerous collections (Maassen lists 9), including Coll.Sanb. in P and Lc.171CROM.721 is found principally in Coll.Dion.-Hadr., but also in Coll.vet.Gall.172
16 infula (XX.10); infula (XXXIX.65) infule173 'infulas' from DINN.401.303, c. 2.174 Cf. also 'infulis' in DGEL.492.636, c. 9.175 DINN.401.303 found in most chronological collections (Maassen lists 14) that include a decretal component.176 DGEL.492.636 found in many chronological collections (Maassen lists 10)177 that include a decretal component. Note that DGEL.492.636 is not found in Ko
17 typum (XXXIX.71) thifus From either the synodal letter of CCAR.419 to Pope Boniface I,178 or the synodal letter of Carthage (424×425) to Pope Celestine I.179 These pertinent letters are found in numerous collections (Turner lists 10 and 9, respectively).

Lapidge estimated that approximately two-thirds of all the lemmata found in the Paris 2685 glossary are also shared by Leiden 69;180 this ratio clearly does not hold true for the canonical components of these glossaries, however, for only 17 of the 51 canonical lemmata in Paris 2685 are also found in Leiden 69. Conventional recensionist methodology would interpret this as indicating that more than 60% of Paris's canonical glosses constitute material added to the tradition by later glossators. This―combined with what appears to be evidence that, somewhere along the way, the tradition represented by the Paris manuscript was subject to abbreviation and normalization181―would seem to suggest that the Paris glossary is a relatively poor witness to the Canterbury glossae collectae (at least to its canonical component anyway). An alternative, non-recensionist interpretation of the data, however, allows for the possibility that Paris 2685's corpus of canonical glosses, though smaller than that in Leiden 69, is nevertheless essentially an original Canterbury text: all one needs to posit is that Paris 2685's text issued forth from the Canterbury school at a slightly earlier time than did Leiden 69's. In this case we might see both glossaries as representing different stages in the development of the original Canterbury glossae, wherein Leiden 69 represents a later, more fully developed and sophisticated stage in a tradition, of which Paris 2685 represents only the beginnings. Unfortunately, no conclusions in these matters can be reached until the three remaining canonical glossaries have been collated. All that can be done here is to comment on that portion of both the Leiden and Paris glossaries which is most likely to go back to Canterbury, that is the 17 lemmata which they share in common. Incidentally, of these 17 lemmata, only 10 share the same or similar glosses.182―a fact that inspires even less confidence that the recensionist methodology is able to isolate a hard textual core in the tradition that can be identified as original Canterbury glossae collectae. Nevertheless, in the absence of a more trustworthy data set, the following analysis must proceed on the presumption that the 17 lemmata listed in Table 4 represent glosses originating at Canterbury under Theodore's archiepiscopate.

Based on the arrangement of the lemmata in the Paris glossary, it can be assumed that chronological (not systematic) canon law collections are the most likely sources. Further, based on the supposed age of the glossae tradition (seventh-century), and the apparent lack of any lemmata taken from 'local' canons, it is highly probable the source collection(s) will be Italian in origin, or Gallica/Iberian modifications of Italian collections. Even so, the range of possible source collections is great. Perhaps the most important conclusion to be drawn from the data in Table 4 is that no one collection suffices as a source for all 17 lemmata. However, as we shall see, one does come close. Lemmata nos 1–4 ( Can.apost.) could not have come from either Coll.Quesn. or from Coll.Sanb., unless from the latter's Ko and P4 witnesses; lemma no. 3, however, would seem to indicate that the source for these four lemmata followed the Dion.II translation, which leaves us with Coll.Dion.II, Coll.Dion.-Hadr., and the collectiones Dionysiana-Bobiensis, Wirceburgensis, Theodosii and Vaticana as likely candidates. Since lemma no. 5, another drawn from the Dionysian group of collections, cannot be found in any collections but Coll.Dion.II and Coll.Dion.-Hadr.,183 one can conclude that either Coll.Dion.II or Coll.Dion.-Hadr.―or some enlarged versions thereof―are the most likely sources for lemmata nos 1–5. This evidence squares rather well with what is known about the probable source of Ecgberht's Dialogus, compiled in York shortly after the composition of the Canterbury glossae (see the ASCL article on this work), as well as with several canonical manuscripts produced on the Continent under Insular influence, three of which are worth mentioning in this connection: W1 is a Coll.Dion.II but one that contains only councils; W2, though now incomplete, may have once contained a full Coll.Dion.-Hadr., including councils and decretals; and W3, currently fragmentary, now contains only decretals but may once have been paired with a copy of the councils of Coll.Dion.II. While none of these manuscripts can itself have served as the source for the Canterbury glosses, collectively they nevertheless evidence a knowledge of the necessary texts among Anglo-Saxons less than a century after the Canterbury gloss tradition began.

Looking at the remaining lemmata from Table 4, we find that, in fact, all but lemma no. 10 could possibly have been taken from an (enlarged) Coll.Dion.II or Coll.Dion.-Hadr. This, however, need not have been the case. One wonders why, for example, if a Dionysian collection were the principal or only source for the Canterbury glosses, no lemmata (at least none found in common between the Leiden and Paris glossaries) were taken from the Dionysian preface.184 In fact, in his study Brett adduces only one lemma ('machomenus') which comes from Coll.Dion.II and no other collections; this lemma is in fact found only in Leiden 69 and so is probably a later addition to the gloss tradition.185 That so much of the evidence for Coll.Dion.II is equivocal is enough reason to explore the possibility that further collections may have influenced the Canterbury glossae collectae.

There is in fact good reason to believe that multiple collections were drawn upon by the glossators at Canterbury. First, such a picture accords with the reality seen in other major scholarly centres in the West at this time or earlier―Carthage, Rome, Arles and Lyon, for example―where not one but many canon law collections were typically available at any one time. By settling, as Brett does, upon Coll.Dion.II as the base collection from which all the Canterbury glosses were drawn, and explaining away all discrepancies between the (original) contents of this collection and the glosses observed in the Leiden and Paris manuscripts as the result of either later additions to Coll.Dion.II or of contamination of Coll.Dion.II by other collections (like Coll.Quesn. or the Novariensis Chalcedonensis), one essentially collapses and flattens into one-dimensionality what was, on the contrary, very probably a rich and complex canonistic culture at Canterbury. Instead of assuming that the single source was a Coll.Dion.II enlarged and augmented with, say, readings from Coll.Quesn., it seems far better to assume that representative collections from both traditions were available to students at Canterbury, as part of a substantial pool of canonistic literature that had been assembled there by Theodore and others since Archbishop Augustine's time. A diversity instead of a uniformity of canonistic literature is, anyway, surely behind the later additions to the Canterbury gloss tradition; that is, the great number of accretions to the 'Leiden-family' of glosses were certainly the result of subsequent glossators in a variety of locales using a variety of canon law collections to make incremental augmentations to the original Canterbury text. Moreover, and as Brett himself acknowledges, far too little is yet known about the process of expansion and development that the Dionysian collections underwent during the sixth to eighth centuries, particularly to the part of the tradition that would eventually become known by historians as the 'Hadriana', to assume that this tradition alone was used for the Canterbury glossae collectae. While the approach Brett takes―to imagine the sort of enlarged Coll.Dion.II that would have needed to exist to explain all the lemmata in these glossaries, and then to posit its existence for that very reason―does have a certain economy and satisfying simplicity, it is hardly the most rigorous way to interpret the evidence, and it even seems to involve a degree of circularity. A more compelling interpretation would would involve positing multiple source collections, both for the original Canterbury glossae collectae and for the later additions to the tradition.

The following collections are thus offered as possible candidates, in conjunction with Coll.Dion.II, for sources of the Canterbury glossae collectae. (Because, for reasons stated above, it is relatively certain that the lemmata taken from Can.apost., namely lemmata nos 1–4, have been drawn from Coll.Dion.II, it will be specified whether or not these four lemmata are included in the tallies that follow). Most notable would be the Collectio Vaticana, which alone contains 9 out of 17 lemmata, or 13 including those taken from the Can.apost.186 The Collectio Hispana (which does not include Can.apost.) alone contains 8 lemmata.187 Honourable mention goes to the collectiones Theodosii diaconi, Wirceburgensis, and Corbeiensis, each of which contains 6 out of 17 lemmata, or 10 in the case of the former two if we count those take from Can.apost. Surprisingly, perhaps, most witnesses of Coll.Sanb. contain only 6 out of 17 lemmata;188 this number jumps from 6 to 11, however, if one considers Ko, which, as was noted above, contains Can.apost. as well as a unique reading for lemma no. 13.189 Thus, while the initial suggestion by Lapidge that Coll.Sanb. was the main source for the canonical glosses can no longer be supported, it may still hold a grain of truth. Indeed, one might revise Lapidge's suggestion and say that, in combination with a version of Coll.Dion.II, a special version of Coll.Sanb. such as that found in Ko was very probably drawn on for a portion of the Canterbury glosses. One should also allow for the possibility that a Vaticana and Hispana were in use in Canterbury as well. Notably, all three collections would account for the presence of lemma no. 10.

If these conclusions regarding what sorts of canon law collections may have been in use at Canterbury during Theodore's archiepiscopate seem unsatisfying, that is because so much work still remains to be done. Canonical glosses from three more manuscripts from the 'Leiden-family' of glossaries have yet to be collated; once completed, a full edition of the Canterbury canonical glosses may shed much clearer light on the currently murky picture of the sorts of collections being studied in England under Theodore and Hadrian's tutelage. Moreover, there may be further and as yet untapped evidence to be gleaned from the writings of Aldhelm, the only student of Theodore's whose works have survived. It is well known that Aldhelm, Bishop of Sherborne (ca 705–709), studied Roman legal texts (perhaps even the Codex Iustinianus itself) at Canterbury,190 and it is simply unthinkable that in the course of his studies Aldhelm would not have become thoroughly acquainted with at least one, if not several different canon law collections.191 It remains to be seen whether any of the vocabulary from the collections discussed above may litter his prose (and possibly even his poetry), and a study of just this sort of thing might reap interesting results.192 Finally, there is perhaps more that can yet be learned about the canonical sources of the mysterious collection of penitential and canonical sentences which go under the title Iudicia Theodori. The most recent editor of the Iudicia, Paul Finsterwalder―whose work (severely criticized in its time) is now nearly a century old―never completed his proposed companion volume detailing the sources of these sentences. Source work on the Iudicia, and on PTHU.700 in particular (on which more will be said below), has accordingly not proceeded very far in the interval.193 Though the Iudicia themselves are perhaps not directly connected to Theodore, they certainly contain valuable evidence of the kind of canonistic knowledge the Archbishop possessed and passed on to his students.194 Unfortunately, as has been noted by Brett, Theodore's habit seems to have been always to paraphrase the law, never quote it verbatim―a fact which has made identifying the sources of the Iudicia, not to mention canons of Hertford (672) and Hæthfeld (679), notoriously difficult.195 This is not to say, however, that further examples of canonical quotations in Theodorian texts, and in early Anglo-Saxon literature generally, will not be discovered if scholars today―whose tools for studying early medieval can law have improved astronomically over the last one-hundred years―put their minds to it.

In conclusion, there is a good amount of evidence to suggest that there were several Italian collections―among them almost certainly a copy of an enlarged Coll.Dion.II, and very probably a copy of Coll.Sanb.―in Canterbury during Theodore's day. One could speculate that Theodore and Hadrian may have brought several such collections with them from the South in 669; indeed, Pope Vitalian may well have insisted that they take an Italian collection with them in order to ensure the English church was in accordance with Roman canonical tradition. Nevertheless, there is nothing that prevents the possibility that Coll.Sanb., or indeed any number of alternative Italian collections, had been available in England long before Theodore and Hadrian's arrival. It is, for example, entirely possible that an Italian collection was in use in Canterbury as early as the pontificates of Pope Gregory's discipuli―Augustine, Justus, Laurence, or Honorius. It is unthinkable that the earliest Roman bishops of Anglo-Saxon England would have attempted to administer their church without the aid of a reasonably comprehensive collection of canon law. And given the nationality of these early bishops, the collection(s) in question would most likely have been of Italian origin. If Pope Gregory I, himself well versed in the canon law, had not sent a book of canons with Augustine himself, then certainly he must have when, in 601, Gregory dispatched Laurence, Mellitus, Justus, Paulinus and Rufinianus from Rome to Canterbury with 'codices plurimos' and other objects useful to the fledgling church.196 Should a copy of Coll.Sanb. or Coll.Dion.II have been among these codices, then it would be fair to say that these collections stand at the head of the tradition of the canon law in Anglo-Saxon England.

Use in the Northumbrian recension of the Iudicia Theodori: Coll.Sanb. is quoted in the 'U' or Northumbrian recension of the Iudicia Theodori, otherwise known as the Theodorian penitential. Turner first noticed that PTHU.700.1,15.4 quotes the versio Isidori vulgata version of CANC.314.24 (canon 23 in Coll.Sanb.), but with variants that align it unmistakably with the unique phrasing this canon has in Ko.197 The data are tabulated below in Table 5 (italicized words indicate readings found in all three texts; bold words indicates readings shared only between Ko and PTHU.700.1,15.4):

Table 5: MS Ko as a source for PTHU.700.1, 15.4
PTHU.700.1, 15.4 CANC.314.24 (versio Isid.vulg.) MS Ko, fol. 24v
Si mulier incantationes vel divinationes diabolicas fecerit I annum vel III . XLmas vel XL iuxta qualitatem culpae peniteat. De hoc in canone dicitur: qui auguria auspicia sive somnia vel divinationes quaslibet secundum mores gentilium observant aut in domos suas huiusmodi homines introducunt in exquaerendis aliquam artem maleficiorum penitentes isti si de clero sunt abiciantur. Si vero saeculares quinquennio peniteant. Qui auguria auspicia siue somnia uel diuinationes quaslibet secundum more genti[li]um obseruant, aut in domos suas huiusmodi homines introducunt in exquirendis aliquibus arte maleficia aut ut domos suas lustrent, confessi quinquennio paenitentiam agant secundum antiquas regulas constitutas. Qui auguria auspiciaque siue somnia uel diuinationes quaslibet secundum mores gentium obserbant aut in domus suas huiusmodi homines introducunt in exquirendis aliquam artem maleficiorum aut ut domos suas inlustrent confessi penitentiam si de clero sunt abiciantur si uero saeculares quinquennio agant saecundum regulas antiquas constitutas

The pertinent section of PTHU.700.1,15.4 ('De hoc in canone ... quinquennia peniteant') is not found in any of the other recensions of the Iudicia, and so was probably introduced by the compiler PTHU.700―the discipulus Umbrensium198―himself, who compiled his collection sometime in the first three decades of the eighth century.199 The possibility that it was in fact PTHU.700 which influenced the Ko tradition in this instance can be discounted, on the grounds that elsewhere this penitential (though again, only in the 'U' recension) draws again on Coll.Sanb. (though this time no direct relationship to Ko is apparent):200

Table 6: Coll.Sanb. as a source for PTHU.700.1, 5.14
PTHU.700.1, 5.14 CNIC.325.11 (versio Isid.) Coll.Sanb. (following siglum S in EOMIA, I, 1.ii, p. 213
Si quis a fide dei discesserit sine ulla necessitate et postea ex toto animo penitentiam accipit inter audientes iuxta Nicene concilium III annos extra ecclesiam et VII annos peniteat in ecclesia inter penitentes et II annos adhuc extra communionem. ... placuit sancto concilio, licet indigni sint misericordia, tamen aliquid circa eos humanitatis ostendi. si quis ergo ex animo paenitent, tribus annis inter auditores constituantur si fideles sunt et septem annis inter paenitentes, duobus uero annis extra communionem in oratione sola participes fiant populo. placuit sancto concilio, licet indigni sint misericordia, tamen aliquid circa eos humanitatis ostendi. si qui ergo ex animo paenitent, tribus annis inter audientes habeantur si tamen fideles sunt et septem annis aliis inter paenitentes sint, duobus item annis extra communionem in oratione sola participent populo.

Thus, one can conclude on the evidence of the Northumbrian ('U') recension of the Iudicia Theodori that a copy of Coll.Sanb. was available to the author of that recension, whoever he might have been. Here then is the strongest evidence so far that a version of Coll.Sanb. from the Ko tradition was available in Northumbria, ca 700 or shortly after according to the estimated date of the completion of PTHU.700.201 It is important to stress, however, that the relevant chapters are additions found only in the Northumbrian recension of PTHU.700, and do not prove that the Coll.Sanb. was used by Theodore when he originally issued his judgements (in whatever form and by whatever method that might have been done).

The exact identity of the discipulus is probably beyond recovery; however, he might have received training at Canterbury or perhaps by one of Theodore's students, perhaps even Aldhelm, for PTHU.700 contains some diction reminiscent of Aldhelm's prose.202 Lapidge, however, has speculated that the discipulus received his training in Deira, specifically 'at Whitby, Hartlepool or York.'203 York, it can be shown, is quite probably the place where Ecgberht and Alcuin would later encounter a copy of the Constitutum Silvestri (= Coll.Sanb. c. XII)204 York is, moreover, a likely place of origin for Ko.

Given this concentration of evidence for the use of Coll.Sanb. at York, one is encouraged to search for English personalities who may have acted as conduits through which Coll.Sanb. arrived in the North of England.205 Perhaps no better candidate can be found that Bishop Wilfrid (†709/10). Born of a noble Northumbrian family, Wilfrid enjoyed wealth and the patronage of royalty in his early years, and following the Synod of Whitby in 664 received the honour of appointment as archbishop of Northumbria, an office which he exercised while based out of York until 678, when the province was divided by Theodore and King Ecgfrith.206 Wilfrid had, according to Clare Stancliffe, 'a thorough grasp of canon law' as a result of his training at both Lyon and Rome during the 650s, where he would have encountered a wide range of canonical literature.207 Given Wilfrid's strong papist stance, it is not only conceivable but highly probable that he would have promoted the dissemination throughout Northumbria of a Roman and Romano-centric collection such as Coll.Sanb., particularly as this collection contains a collections of documents (the Symmachiana) which strongly supports the idea of papal primacy. Moreover, as was noted above, several glosses in the lavishly ornate Ko copy of Coll.Sanb. suggest a connection with the controversies surrounding Wilfrid's episcopal career.208 It would in fact be in keeping with what is known about Wilfrid's ostentatious lifestyle209 if Ko, one of the most exquisite and expensive copies of an early medieval canon law collection now extant,210 had emanated from Wilfrid's circle. It is a further, tantalizing possibility that Wilfrid bestowed Ko upon his spiritual 'son', Willibrord, to take with him on his missionary ventures into Frisia.211 Such speculation cannot be proven, of course, but it helps to explain how Ko might have arrived on the Continent so soon after its production.

Boniface's circle: To find further evidence of Anglo-Saxon encounters with Coll.Sanb. during the eighth century it is necessary to venture further afield, specifically to St Boniface and the area of his mission in the regions East of the Rhine. In Willibald of Mainz's Vita Bonifatii, we learn that at Boniface's episcopal consecration in Rome in 722, as a tool to help him promote Roman discipline within the Frankish church, Pope Gregory II provided Boniface with a collection of canons. Due to obvious verbal parallels between Willibald's description of this collection and the preface of Coll.Dion., it has been suggested that the collection the pope gave to Boniface must have been a Dionysian one.212 The passage from Willibald's Vita reads as follows (italicised words are also found in the prefaces to the first and second recensions of Coll.Dion.; bold words are in the first-recension only; underlined words in the second-recension only):213

... eique libellum, in quo sacratissima ęcclęsiasticae constitutionis iura pontificalibus sunt digesta conventibus, accommodavit et, ut ex hoc inconvulsa apud se pontificalis haec disciplinatae institutionis ordo permaneret populique subiecti his inbuantur exemplis, imperavit.

Willibald clearly drew his language for this passage directly from the Dionysian prefaces. However, his wording points to two different recensions of this preface, which raises the question, was he quoting from the preface of Coll.Dion.I or from Coll.Dion.II? The answer to this question (and the concomitant question of whether the Dionysian collection Willibald here quotes from included decretals or not) has been disputed. On the one hand, it is the first recension of Dionysius's collection that is associated most closely with Boniface and his circle, namely through the Bonifatian MS Va1, which contains Coll.Dion.I along with a number of other legal and canonical works associated with the Saint. On the other hand, the wording used in the Vita passage seems to favour the second recension preface, the significance of the single word 'inconvulsa' (unique to the first recension preface) being outweighed by that of the second recension phrase 'inbuantur exemplis'. The presence of 'inconvulsa' could be explained as a chance occurrence, or, as Michael Glatthaar has suggested, might indicate that Willibald also had access to both the first and second recension prefaces.214 Thus, attempts to determine which canon law collections Willibald knew on the basis of which version of Coll.Dion. his Vita appears to quote have produced ambiguous results.

While there is some evidence showing that Coll.Dion. was the preferred book of canons in the papal curia at this time,215 which would suggest that Pope Gregory II's gift to Boniface was indeed a copy of Coll.Dion., one should not rule out the possibility that Willibald's language here alludes to some other collection that happened to be preceded by a Dionysian preface, several of which existed at this time. One of these is the version of Coll.Sanb. that is found in Ko. As mentioned above, unlike all other copies of Coll.Sanb. (except P4), Ko begins with a Dionysian preface. Ko in fact contains a special version of the Dionysian preface, one which mixes readings from the two recensions.216 Significantly, it includes all of the words highlighted with in bold and underline in the passage quoted above. In other words, Ko's preface alone can explain why it seems Willibald was quoting from both a first and second-recension Dionysian preface. Could Willibald have thus been quoting from a Ko-like copy of Coll.Sanb., or perhaps from Ko itself? Perhaps. Might this mean that the collection presented to Boniface upon his consecration was a Coll.Sanb. of the Ko tradition, rather than a Coll.Dion.? Possibly, though it would be unwise to insist on this hypothesis merely on the basis of Willibald's the allusive wording in Vita. It is well known, for example, that throughout his career Boniface encountered and used several canon law collections.217 To attempt to pin down the exact identity of the collection he received from the Pope at the beginning of his legatine commission merely on the basis of the testimony of Willibald―who was not present at the ceremony, and was moreover writing his Vita long after the fact―would be hazardous to say the least. A far safer, and more satisfying, interpretation of the passage from Willibald's Vita would be that one or even several copies of the Ko tradition of Coll.Sanb. were floating through the ranks of Boniface's missionary circle, and that Willibald may have become familiar with one of these. As has been seen, Ko was probably in Metz during the episcopate of Angilramn, which began in 768. The whereabouts of Ko before this time is unknown, but it is entirely possible that Ko had already been brought to the Continent by the early eighth century (perhaps by Willibrord, as was speculated above) and was housed somewhere within the area of the Anglo-Saxon mission. Willibald was commissioned by Lul to write his Vita Bonifatii sometime between the years 755 and 768.218 There is therefore nothing to prevent, and indeed some evidence to suggest the possibility that Ko was on housed in Mainz around the time Willibald set to writing his Vita, at that it was from Mainz that Ko then travelled to Metz, during or just before the episcopate of Angilramn.

Whatever the identity of the original collection bestowed upon Boniface by Pope Gregory II, the gift of that collection by the bishop of Rome to the new bishop of 'Germany' was not only offered as an object of practical value, but also as a symbol, both of the papacy's legitimizing support for its new legate's mission, and of the canonical spirit and respect for Roman tradition which the Pope hoped would inform Boniface's work. This legal symbolism invested in Boniface's consecration goes a long way to explaining the manifestly juridical tone adopted in correspondence between Boniface and the papacy: references to 'the canons' or 'the precepts of the Fathers' are uncommonly frequent in his letters. That Willibald should later record this papal gift in such calculated language, seems also to say something about the significance he perceived the act as having for Boniface's future projects. Moreover, that Willibald actually resorted to quoting from an actual canon law collection for the pertinent passage in his Vita, implies the enduring success of the Boniface's efforts to instil a spirit of canonicity and discipline within the ranks of the English and Frankish clergy.


(1) F. Glorie, ed., 'Praefatio Dionysii exigui ad Stephanum episcopum', in Scriptores Illyrici minores, CCSL 85 (Turnhout, 1972), pp. 39–42. Also found in MS P4. Ko's version of Dionysius's preface agrees for the most part with Glorie's Recensio B, but also includes some readings from Recensio A.

(2) Also found in the MS P4. After Can.apost. in P4 there follow CLAO.300 (versio Dion.), SEA, c. 7 and CORL.511.16―all of which are clearly late additions to the tradition. Then follows the rubric 'In nomine sanctae trinitatis incipiunt canones de universis provinciis', which introduces Coll.Sanb. proper: F. Maassen, Geschichte der Quellen und der Literatur des canonischen Rechts im Abendlande bis zum Ausgange des Mittelalters. Band I: die Rechtsammlungen bis zur Mitte des 9. Jahrhunderts (Graz, 1870), p. 509.

(3) Note that Ko, along with one other Coll.Sanb. witness (see below, n. 50), contain an index for this council in the so-called versio prisca translation.

(4) Ed. C. Munier, Concilia Africae a. 345–525, CCSL 149 (Turnhout, 1974), pp. 89–95.

(5) Ed. Munier, Africae, p. 149.

(6) Ed. Munier, Africae, pp. 150–52.

(7) The text, which here purports to be a letter by Atticus of Constantinople to Pope Boniface I, is edited as part of Coll.Quesn. in PL 56, cols 730A–731A. See Maassen, Geschichte, pp. 399–402.

(8) This letter is not found in the MS Sp.

(9) P4 breaks off part way through this letter.

(10) Ed. P. Coustant, Epistolae romanorum pontificum et quae ad eos scriptae sunt a S. Clemente I. usque ad Innocentium III. quotquot reperiri potuerunt. Tom. I: ab anno Christi 67 ad annum 440, (Paris, 1721), cols 1027–28.

(11) Only part of this decretal is transmitted in MS P.

(12) Cf. D. Jasper, 'The Beginning of the decretal tradition: papal letters from the origin of the genre through the pontificate of Stephen V', in Papal letters in the early Middle Ages, eds H. Fuhrmann and D. Jasper, History of medieval canon law 2 (Washington, D.C., 2001), pp. 3–133, at p. 35 n. 144: 'The text of the codex Cologne, Dombibl. 213 of the collection in the manuscript of Sankt Blasien ... is certainly very old, but also exceptionally faulty.'

(13) ACO, II, 2.ii, no. 5, pp. 103–06; however, a better edition can be found in W. Stürner, 'Die Quellen der Fides Konstantins im Constitutum Constantini (§§ 3–5)', Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte. Kanonistische Abteilung 55 (1969), 64–206, at p. 90. Following this document in P is a partial version of the Athanasian creed ('Est ergo fides recta'): Maassen, Geschichte, 508.

(14) That is, the appendix to the Tomus Damasi (DDAM.366.235), but without the papal letter itself. On the various versions this letter takes in medieval canon law collections, see Maassen, Geschichte, pp. 232–39 no. 274.2. Cf. also Coll.Quesn. c. LV.

(15) Ed. Stürner, 'Quellen der Fides', pp. 162–63.

(16) Ed. Stürner, 'Quellen der Fides', p. 126.

(17) Ed. A. Feder, Sancti Hilarii episcopi Pictaviensis opera, vol. 4, CSEL 65 (Vienna, 1916), pp. 126–???.

(18) Due to the loss of an unknown number of quires, these manuscripts end incompletely: P4 ends in the middle of DSIR.384.255 (= Coll.Sanb. c. XXVII); Pl in the middle of DINN.401.286 (= Coll.Sanb. c. XXIII). We can assume with a reasonable amount of certainty that both manuscripts once included the material common to the rest of Coll.Sanb. in the other extant witnesses, viz. (for P4) DBON.418.353, Honorius's rescript, DZOS.417.339, DCEL.422.371, DCEL.422.369, DINN.401.286, and (for both Pl and P4) DINN.401.293, DINN.401.303, DLEO.440.544, DLEO.440.410, DLEO.440.398, DLEO.440.399, and the several dogmatic documents. Whether they contained further documents (like decretals by Pope Gelasius I) is now impossible to know.

(19) Between chapters 9 and 10 of this decretal, P inserts the apocryphal Decretum Gelasianum de libris recipiendis et non recipiendis (DGEL.492.†700).

(20) Found only in P, where it is added by a slightly later hand: Wirbelauer, Zwei Päpste, p. 196. See also H. Wurm, Studien und Texte zur Dekretalensammlung des Dionysius Exiguus, Kanonistische Studien und Texte 16 (Bonn, 1939), p. 264 n. to item 15.

(21) Found in both Lc and P (see above, n. 18), but in this position only in Lc. According to Maassen, Geschichte, p. 510, the versions of this text in Lc and P are different, and derive from different formal sources.

(22) This text extant uniquely in Lc: Maassen, Geschichte, p. 285. It is edited by A. Thiel, Epistolae romanorum pontificum genuinae ... a S. Hilario usque ad Pelagium II. Tom. I: a S. Hilario usque ad S. Hormisdam ann. 461–523 (Braunsberg, 1868), pp. 509–10.

(23) Found only in Lc. It is edited by F. Glorie in Maxentii aliorumque Scytharum monachorum necnon Ioannis Tomitanae urbis episcopi opuscula, CCSL 85A (Turnhout, 1978), pp. 251–73. The work is a collection of quotations drawn from Augustine's writings, and was possibly referred to by Pope Hormisdas in a letter to Possessor. Scholars have proposed John Maxentius and Prosper of Aquitaine as possible authors of the Capitula, but current opinion favours an anonymous Gallic origin; see A.Y. Hwang, Intrepid lover of perfect grace: the life and thought of Prosper of Aquitaine (Washington, DC, 2009), pp. 25–6, 179–82.

(24) Wirbelauer, Zwei Päpste, p. 122: 'nimmt ... einen Spitzenplatz unter den historisch geordneten vorkarolingischen Kirchenrechtsbüchern ein.' Wirbelauer bases this evaluation chiefly on 'ihrer nachweislichen Verbreitung'.

(25) See Wirbelauer, Zwei Päpste; E. Wirbelauer, 'Zum Umgang mit kanonistischer Tradition im frühen Mittelalter. Drei Wirkungen der Symmachianischen Documenta', in Schriftlichkeit im frühen Mittelalter, ed. U. Schaefer, ScriptOralia 53 (Tübingen, 1993), pp. 207–28; E. Wirbelauer, 'Laurenzo e Simmaco. Ragioni del conflitto negli anni 498–506', in Il papato di San Simmaco, 498–514: Atti del Convegno internazionale di studi (Oristano, 19–21 novembre 1998), eds G. Mele and N. Spaccapelo et al., Studi e ricerche di cultura religiosa n.s. 2 (Cagliari, 2000), pp. 39–51, at pp. 45–6.

(26) Apart from the fact that, given the number of early medieval canon law collections arising in Italy, 'Italica' is a much less distinctive title than (the admittedly arbitrary) 'Sanblasiana', Wirbelauer's terminology creates confusion when discussing the four collections which form Maassen's Italian/priscan group (discussed below). I find no real evidence for Wirbelauer's repeated claim that 'Sanblasiana' is 'una dicitura che ha sempre creato confusione fra i canonisti' (Wirbelauer, 'Laurenzo e Simmaco', 45; cf. Wirbelauer, Zwei Päpste, 123 n. 49, citing Gaudemet); the older term is in fact one which has been used by canonists for the last 150 years quite comfortably and without confusion.

(27) In this I believe I stand with Lester J. Field, Jr., who, in his On the communion of Damasus and Meletius: fourth-century synodal formulae in the Codex Veronensis LX, Studies and texts 145 (Toronto, 2004), repeatedly uses the older title 'Sanblasiana' instead of Wirbelauer's 'Italica'. It is not always entirely clear whether Wirbelauer intended the term 'Italica' to replace 'Sanblasiana'. In his earlier study, Zwei Päpste, Wirbelauer expressly uses the title 'Italica' to refer to a group of three collections of Italian origin, of which Coll.Sanb. is the original and the other two―the Collectio Colbertina and the first of the collections in the Diessensis manuscript―are derivatives; Wirbelauer recognized the 'redaktionell' differences between the three collections, 'Da aber fast ausschließlich ein kumulatives ... Interesse verliegt, d.h. das Bestreben vorherrscht, das Material der Collectio Italica mit weiteren Texten zu komplettieren, sollten sie in den betreffenden Teilen ... als (erweiterte) Italica-Überlieferungen bezeichnen' (Wirbelauer, Zwei Päpste, p. 122 n. 48). In other words, for the purposes of studying the Symmachiana (and certain other texts, like DGEL.492.675), Wirbelauer found it convenient to class the similar textual traditions found in these three collections under the collective title 'Italica'. Notwithstanding his criticisms in Zwei Päpste, p. 123 n. 49, of the actual choice of the name Sanblasiana by Maassen, it does not seem that at this stage Wirbelauer intended the title 'Italica' to supplant that of 'Sanblasiana'―which would be tantamount to rejecting the distinctiveness of Coll.Sanb. from the other two collections in Wirbelauer's Italica group. However, in his later paper 'Laurenzo e Simmaco', in discussing Coll.Sanb. (and Coll.Sanb. alone) Wirbelauer mentions how 'Ho proposto ... di chiamarla d'ora in poi Collectio Italica per equipararla ad altre raccolte di portata regionale.' In this later work, then, it seems that Wirbelauer has jettisoned the subtle distinctions of his earlier research in favour of wholesale replacement of 'Sanblasiana' with 'Italica'.

(28) This is proven by the fact that the Dionysian translation of all of CGAN.355.4 and of the conclusion to CGAN.355.6 were already part of the exemplar of Coll.Sanb. and the Collectio Vaticana: EOMIA, II, 2, pp. 188–91. Moreover, three passages in Coll.Sanb.'s version of CCHA.451.6, 8 and 16 are taken from Coll.Dion.: ACO, II, 2.ii, p. 35 lines 1–3 and 7–9, and p. 37 lines 18–19; see also Maassen, Geschichte, p. 505, and Wirbelauer, Zwei Päpste, pp. 127–28 with n. 66. The possibility will be considered below that these Dionysian borrowings in CCHA.451 only entered the Coll.Sanb. tradition in the eighth century. Beyond the influence of specific Dionysian readings on those of Coll.Sanb., Wirbelauer, Zwei Päpste, p. 125, notes that Coll.Sanb. was influenced by Dionysius's division of conciliar and decretal material into separate blocks, the former preceding the latter. However, Coll.Quesn., which predates Coll.Dion. and which seems to have influenced Coll.Sanb. in a number of ways, had already been arranged in roughly the same way. Furthermore, one of Coll.Sanb.'s major sources, the now lost Collectio prisca, seems also to have been arranged in this way: on which see below, n. 55.

(29) L. Kéry, Canonical collections of the early Middle Ages (ca. 400–1140): a bibliographical guide to manuscripts and literature, History of medieval canon law 1 (Washington, D.C., 1999), pp. 3, 31.

(30) Wirbelauer, Zwei Päpste, pp. 125–26, where he suggests that the 'final redaction' was assembled under Hormisdas, but that the 'core' of the collection (the conciliar canons and decretals) had been completed during the pontificate of Symmachus. Though Wirbelauer does not discuss it directly, the similarities here between this proposed development of the 'core' of Coll.Sanb. and the emergence of the Collectio prisca―one of Coll.Sanb.'s principal sources―is intriguing. For discussion of the Prisca, see below.

(31) In addition to Wirbelauer's discussion of this controversy in Zwei Päpste, useful accounts in English can be found in W.T. Townsend, 'The so-called Symmachian forgeries', The journal of religion 13 (1933), 165–74, and W.T. Townsend, 'Councils held under Pope Symmachus', Church history 6 (1937), 233–59.

(32) Wirbelauer, Zwei Päpste, 126: 'die betont pro-chalkedonische Ausrichtung läßt den Verzicht auf die Texte zum Akakianischen Schisma als bewußte Entscheidung erscheinen. Hier sollten die Adressaten (viz. newly elected bishops; see below) nicht mit Dingen "beunruhigt" werden, deren Kenntnis ihnen kaum hilfreich sein, sie aber möglicherweise zu ungewolltem Nachdenken und in Verwirrung bringen konnte. Eine solche Sicht ermöglicht freilich keine nähere Datierung des Sammlungsgrundstocks, allenfalls wird man ihn sich gut im Kontext der Pontifikate eines Symmachus (unter dem das offizielle Rom an einer Auseinandersetzung mit dem Osten schließlich überhaupt kein Interesse mehr zeigte) oder Hormisdas vorstellen können.'

(33) Wirbelauer, Zwei Päpste, pp. 126–27: 'klug ausbalanciertes Werk eines gemäßigten Symmachus-Anhängers ... (wie Hormisdas einer war).'

(34) Field, On the communion of Damasus and Meletius, p. 98; K. Blair-Dixon, 'Memory and authority in sixth-century Rome: the Liber pontificalis and the Collectio Avellana', in Religion, dynasty and patronage in early Christian Rome, 300–900, eds K. Cooper and L. Hillner (Cambridge, 2007), pp. 59–78, at p. 64.

(35) Maassen, Geschichte, p. 510, adding that 'Der Verfasser scheint die Stücke in der Ordnung gelassen zu haben, in der er sie in seinem Quellen fand.'

(36) Cf. Wirbelauer, Zwei Päpste, p. 123.

(37) Maassen, Geschichte, p. 510: 'Aber die Reihenfolge der Päpste ist ganz willkürlich.'

(38) Wirbelauer, Zwei Päpste, p. 125: 'Die Collectio Italica [i.e. Coll.Sanb. and its derivative collections] war in der ermittelten Gestalt zur Übergabe an eben ordinierte Bischofe erarbeitet.'

(39) Wirbelauer, 'Laurenzo e Simmaco', p. 45: 'non è nient'altro ... che il manuale di diritto canonico ad uso di un neoeletto vescovo italico'.

(40) Wirbelauer, 'Laurenzo e Simmaco', p. 46: 'Tutti e tre i testi (the letter Pope Julius I, DGEL.492.636, and DGEL.492.675; = Coll.Sanb. cc. XXXIV–VI) non sono tanto formulazioni del primato romano, quanto del suo riconoscimento e quindi del suo Sitz im Leben. Colui che in qualità di vescovo è fornito di questa raccolta non può comunque fare a meno di accettare il primato romano sotto ogni aspetto: l'hanno riconosciuto concili greci, lo testimoniano in circostanze critiche documenti romani, le lettere dei papi lo rinvigoriscono e gli altri vescovi lo riconoscono, in quanto esso―così interpreterei il contesto della Necessaria rerum―è indispensabile per l'organizzazione della Chiesa italica. Tutto ciò raccomanda la formula di intronizzazione alla fine della raccolta.'

(41) It is not immediately clear from Wirbelauer's argument, but his thesis seems to rest essentially on two premises. First, he implies (Zwei Päpste, p. 125) that the concluding sentence of DGEL.492.675 in Coll.Sanb. is intended not only as a conclusion of the text itself, but of the collection as a whole; this is interesting yet ultimately unprovable speculation. Wirbelauer's second premise is more substantial: that DGEL.492.675's introductory rubric 'Incipiunt constituta sancti Gelasi pape quas [sic] episcopi in ordinatione sua accipiunt' is first found in Coll.Sanb. (this is the gist of the information rather cryptically supplied by Wirbelauer, Zwei Päpste, p. 123 n. 52, which needs to be compared with the discussion in Thiel, ed., Epistolae, p. 32). If this is indeed correct (and it may be; according to Maassen, Geschichte, p. 284 no. 285.20, no collection earlier than Coll.Sanb. contains DGEL.492.675), then it supports Wirbelauer's claim (p. 125) that 'wußte der Autor der Coll.Italica bei der Verfertigung seiner Sammlung noch Näheres uber Entstehung und Verwendungszweck des Textes, was er seinen Lesern nicht verheimlichen wollte.' The possibility cannot be ruled out, however, that the compiler of Coll.Sanb. merely copied his rubric and conclusion from a pre-existing version of DGEL.492.675, in which case Wirbelauer's theory would no longer seem valid.

(42) Perhaps not so difficult a proposition to accept, considering that Wirbelauer argues convincingly (Zwei Päpste, pp. 132–34) that Dionysius's collection stood in direct opposition to the views of Pope Symmachus, and thus it was likely to have won neither the favour nor acceptance of that pope, nor possibly (at first) his immediate successor, and strong supporter, Hormisdas. On the other hand, Pope Hormisdas did eventually commission Dionysius to produce a revised, bilingual edition of his canon law collection. For a suggestion as to how it was that an initially sour relationship between Dionysius and Hormisdas might have improved over time, see Wirbelauer, Zwei Päpste, p. 121.

(43) DGEL.492.675 is absent from Ko, nor can its presence in Pl or P4 be confirmed since these witnesses are incomplete. However, the fact that DGEL.492.675 is found in both witnesses from the α family of manuscripts (Sp and Lc) and in one from the β family (P), is strong evidence that the document formed an original part of Coll.Sanb. (for discussion of the manuscript tradition of Coll.Sanb., see below). Moreover, that DGEL.492.675 is found in two sixth-century derivatives of Coll.Sanb.―the Colbertina and the Diessensis (on which more will be said below)―argues in favour of DGEL.492.675 having been included in Coll.Sanb. very early on in the tradition.

(44) According to Wurm, Studien, p. 264, DGEL.492.675 is the final document of Coll.Sanb. in Sp, Lc and P (though in the latter it is followed by DINN.401.311, which has been added by a later hand: see above, n. 20).

(45) As Wirbelauer himself acknowledges (Zwei Päpste, p. 125): 'Diese These soll durch die folgenden Überlegungen weiter expliziert werden, obgleich die Grundlage für eine eingehende Untersuchung der Sammlung, eine kritische Edition, nur in einzelnen Texten geschaffen ist.'

(46) Maassen, Geschichte, pp. 500–01. See also C.H. Turner, 'Chapters in the history of Latin MSS of canons. V', The journal of theological studies 30 (1929), 337–46, and C.H. Turner, 'Chapter in the history of Latin MSS. of canons. VI', The journal of theological studies 31 (1929), 9–20.

(47) According to Maassen, Geschichte, p. 501, this feature was apparently diagnostic of collections with an Italian origin in the sixth century.

(48) Maassen, Geschichte, p. 52 no. 54, and pp. 506, 510.

(49) Coll.Sanb. and the Vaticana are principal witnesses to the Symmachiana; the Teatina, on the other hand, contains only an excerpt from one of the constituent documents, namely Const.Silv. (SK1); see Wirbelauer, Zwei Päpste, pp. 115–18. The collections from Maassen's Italian group show several other similarities beyond those listed here, for which see Maassen, Geschichte, pp. 501–04 and 510–11.

(50) Specifically: the collectiones Iustelliana and Vaticana contain the versio prisca of CNIC.325 (but see below, n. 55); the Iustelliana further shares with the Teatina the versiones priscae of CANC.314, CNEO.315, CGAN.355, CANT.328, CCON.381 and CCHA.451. The collectiones Sanblasiana and Vaticana share only CANT.328, CCON.381 and CCHA.451 in the 'priscan' translation, but CANC.314, CNEO.315, and CGAN.355 in the so-called versio Isidori (vulgata). Note, however, that both Ko and Sp contain a versio prisca index for CGAN.355.

(51) The origins of the versio prisca are discussed in Turner, 'Chapters in the history of Latin MSS of canons. V', and Turner, 'Chapters in the history of Latin MSS of canons. VI'. See also Field, On the communion of Damasus and Meletius, p. 67 n. 60, p. 68 n. 63, p. 98 n. 177, and p. 99. For the versio prisca's dependence upon Coll.Quesn. for chapter titles to CNIC.325 and CSAR.347, see Turner, 'Chapters in the history of Latin MSS of canons. VI', pp. 19–20; for Turner's assessment of the style of the translations, see pp. 17–18 of the same article.

(52) For a complete description of the contents of the Teatina, see Wirbelauer, Zwei Päpste, pp. 211–13.

(53) The versio Isidori being the same tradition in which Coll.Quesn. falls. See Turner, 'Chapters in the history of Latin MSS of canons. VI', with the contamination of the Vaticana discussed on p. 18. As will be discussed below, it is possible that these passages only entered Coll.Sanb.'s tradition in the eighth century.

(54) As they are by Field, On the communion of Damasus and Meletius.

(55) According to Turner, 'Chapters in the history of Latin MSS of canons. VI', p. 11, the lost Collectio prisca contained the councils of CANC.314, CNEO.315, CGAN.355, CANT.328, CCAR.419, CCHA.451, and CCON.381, in that order. Turner argues (pp. 11–12) that the original collection omitted CNIC.325; thus, what has been printed as the versio prisca of CNIC.325 (common to Iustelliana and Vaticana) ever since Justel's editio princeps of the Iustelliana is in fact nothing of the sort; it is rather a combination of the version of CNIC.325 found in the interpretationes Attici and Ingilramni (the latter = Teatina). Turner further speculates (p. 16) that the Prisca may have also contained a series of papal letters; however, there is insufficient evidence to deduce which letters might have been included. On the possibility that the Prisca also included the Symmachiana, see below.

(56) Wirbelauer, Zwei Päpste, pp. 115–18.

(57) For Wirbelauer's suggestion that Coll.Dion. had its origins in this conflict, see below.

(58) Cf. Townsend, 'The so-called Symmachian forgeries', p. 171.

(59) Note, however, that the Vaticana and Coll.Sanb. contain different versions of the Symmachiana; i.e., Coll.Sanb. presents a collection of contemporary Symmachian forgeries, which Wirbelauer designates 'SD1', while the Vaticana presents a later and much smaller collection of documents, which Wirbelauer designates 'SD2'.

(60) Maassen, Geschichte, pp. 511–12; Turner, 'Chapters in the history of Latin MSS of canons. VI', p. 9; Wirbelauer, Zwei Päpste, p. 123 n. 49.

(61) Wurm, Studien, p. 90.

(62) Wirbelauer, Zwei Päpste, p. 186; Wurm, Studien, p. 91.

(63) And indeed the only copy of any real value, since the two other extant witnesses are merely apographs: C.H. Turner, 'Chapters in the history of Latin MSS of canons. VII', The journal of theological studies 32 (1930), 1–11, at pp. 3–4, 7.

(64) Despite common claims to the contrary, e.g. in Kéry, Collections, p. 45. The matter is fully explained by Turner, 'Chapters in the history of Latin MSS of canons. VII', pp. 4–6. The offending folios are so inserted as to appear integral to the whole, beginning where the Hague Sancti Mauri breaks off (CNIC.325.20) and ending where the Sancti Mauri picks up again (at CSAR.347.3). On the relationship of the Sancti Mauri to Coll.Quesn. see Turner, 'Chapters in the history of Latin MSS of canons. VII', pp. 6–7.

(65) EOMIA, I, 2.iii, p. ix. Comparing Turner, 'Chapters in the history of Latin MSS of canons. VII', p. 5, against Maassen, Geschichte, p. 617, it appears that the insert contains the following texts: CNIC.325.20–end (versio Isidori) + subscription list (cf. Coll.Sanb. c. III); Gennadius of Marseilles's Liber ecclesiasticorum dogmatum; the constitutio of Impp. Valentinian and Marcianus ('Omnibus negotiis') to Anatolius of Constantinople (cf. Coll.Quesn. c. XXV); Chalcedonian ordo gestorum (cf. Coll.Quesn. c. XXV); synodal letter of CSAR.347 to Pope Julius I (cf. Coll.Sanb. c. XXXIV); CROM.595; and CSAR.347.1–3 (cf. Coll.Quesn. c. I).

(66) Wirbelauer, Zwei Päpste, p. 122 with n. 48.

(67) See above, n. 18.

(68) Though the conciliar councils have been fully collated by Turner and Schwartz; the former used the siglum 'S', the latter used 'B' for a consensus codicum of Coll.Sanb. manuscripts.

(69) Maassen, Geschichte, p. 509: 'Dass hiernach die Handschrift von Sanct Blasien der ursprünglichen Gestalt der Sammlung am nächsten kommt, ist leicht zu erkennen'; cf. also pp. 505 and 510.

(70) That Sp and Lc share a close relationship has been confirmed by the discovery that these manuscripts share an exemplar that was defective in its arrangement. This was first pointed out by Wurm, Studien, p. 265–66 n. ('Schlußbemerkung') to item 14, who observed that both manuscripts share common defects in their organization of certain decretals; cf. also ACO, II, 2.ii, p. viiii. It should be noted, however, that Lc and Sp are not first generation apographs of the same exemplar, for Lc has a far greater degree of disorganization in its decretal series (Wurm, Studien, pp. 256–66 n.), and also evidences a peculiar tradition in its text of Const.Silv. (Wirbelauer, Zwei Päpste, 183).

(71) EOMIA, I, 2.i, p. viii and II, 1, p. 34. That Ko and P share a common exemplar is proven by the fact that they both contain the following marginal note set next to the Chalcedonian definition of faith (= Coll.Sanb. c. XXX): 'ista epistola iam scripsi in codice presbiteri Tribuni'; see ACO, II, 2.ii, p. 11. The same note is completely garbled in Ko, which reads (fol. 135r): 'istam episcopus iam scius sym [scius sym possibly corr. to scripsi in] codice praespiteri tribuni'. Ko and P may share at least one other marginalium in common, on which see below, n. 98.

(72) Namely DINN.401.293 (= Coll.Sanb. c. XXIV); see H. Wurm, 'Decretales selectae ex antiquissimis romanorum Pontificum epistulis decretalibus', Apollinaris 12 (1939), 40–93, at p. 53. Note that Wurm observed that Ko's readings occasionally departed from those of all other Coll.Sanb. witnesses, a phenomenon observed in other sections of the collection by other scholars.

(73) See Wirbelauer, Zwei Päpste, p. 224, as well as his grouping of sigla at the beginning of his editions of SD1–SK1, SL, SX, SP and SM (Zwei Päpste, 228, 248, 262, 272, 284), where the following affiliations are advertised: KP2P1 (= Ko P and P4) ― P3 (= Colb, or Collectio Colbertina) ― Ma (= Pl) ― SM1L1/L4 (= Sp, Collectio Diessensis prima and Lc). Note the middling position of MS Colb (the Collectio Colbertina), which implies that a branch of the Coll.Sanb. tradition (the Colbertina's exemplar) has gone missing. The critical apparatus for Wirbelauer's edition of the Symmachiana is not complete, and for more detailed textual data we must await his forthcoming edition in the MGH; however, from the information Wirbelauer does provide, it is obvious that Ko presents numerous egregious readings, some of which are the result of later corrections against other (and recensionally very different) copies of the Symmachiana, while others appear, at least at first glance, to be the result of scribal error. However, given the primacy of Ko in the textual tradition of the Symmachiana and of Coll.Sanb. generally, it may well be the case that many of these apparent scribal corruptions are rather 'pure' readings from an originally corrupt text. Indeed, scholars have long noted that the ghastly style of the Symmachian forgeries (on which see Townsend, 'The so-called Symmachian forgeries', p. 171) is probably not the result of scribal corruption but rather of the fact that they arose as 'popular pamphlets' disseminated among the in part Gothic population of Rome: see Townsend, 'The so-called Symmachian forgeries', pp. 166–67; Townsend, 'Councils', pp. 233–34; and cf. Wirbelauer, Zwei Päpste, p. 166, who characterizes the language of the Symmachiana as that of '[freilich stilisierter] Umgangsprache'). We have already seen above that the Latin translations of Greek canons (the Prisca) with which the Symmachiana came to be associated early on were of exceptionally poor quality. It is not too difficult to believe, then, that the original Symmachian documents were themselves full of syntactical, grammatical and orthographical abnormalities, abnormalities that have in large part been preserved by Ko.

(74) EOMIA, II, 1, p. 34. Note the position of Pl in Wirbelauer's grouping in n. 73, above.

(75) Cf. Wirbelauer, 'Zum Umgang mit kanonistischer Tradition', p. 217, and n. 73, above.

(76) EOMIA, II, 1, p. 34: 'uera sylloges S lectio nonnumquam apud SZ [α] ..., saepius apud XY [β] inuenitur'. And cf. EOMIA, I, 2.i, p. vii, where Turner notes that 'fidem autem neque uni [familiae] neque alteri semper adhibendam.' Cf. Wirbelauer, Zwei Päpste, p. 224, who gives full weight to Symmachiana readings found in both Ko and P.

(77) EOMIA, I, 2.i, p. vii: 'SZ [α], cui adsentiunt codices sylloges v'.

(78) If one had the time, one could sift through the textual data provided by Turner and Schwartz for the conciliar canons of Coll.Sanb., and evaluate each case in which Pl agrees with either family α or β. If Pl represents a purer state in the tradition, then it should only agree with α (as against β) when α has the better reading, and with β (as against α) when β has the better reading. This could also be done with the Symmachiana component of Coll.Sanb. using Wirbelauer's forthcoming MGH edition, which will include more detailed information about textual variants than is currently available in his 1993 edition. Unfortunately, the same evaluation of textual variants can at present not be done for any of Coll.Sanb.'s decretals (DINN.401.293 was edited critically by Hubert Wurm, but he did not collate Pl).

(79) See above, n. 727.

(80) A. von Euw and J.M Plotzek, Die Handschriften der Sammlung Ludwig, 4 vols (Cologne, 1979–1985), IV, p. 36: 'Der Prisca-Text ist an zwei entscheidenden Stellen durch den des Dionysius ersetzt ... : 37r zu Beginn von Can. VIII Z. 3: qui in unaquaque civitate etc. ist nach der Versio Dionysiana offensichtlich von anderer Hand eingesetzt ..., ebenso stammt 39r der Schluß von Can. XVII [sic pro XVI]: ut habeat autoritatem eiusdem loci episcopus misericordiam humanitatem quae largiri ... aus der Dionysiana.'

(81) Von Euw-Plotzek, Die Handschriften, IV, 39: 'In welchen mittelbaren oder unmittelbaren Verhältnis unsere Handschrift zu Cod. St. Paul 7/1 oder zu dem ... Lucceser Codex steht, kann hier nicht untersucht werden, doch scheinen Inhalt und Form beider Handschriften die These von der oberitalienischen Entstehung des [Pl] zu festigen.'

(82) Von Euw-Plotzek, Die Handschriften, IV, 39–40: 'Interessant und im Gesamtzusammenhang vielleicht aufschlußreich ist die Wanderung von Cod. St. Paul 7/1. Aufgrund früher Korrekturen und eines Exlibris aus dem 15. Jahrhundert wird er bereits im späteren 8. Jahrhundert auf der Reichenau nachweisbar. Unter Fürstabt Martin Gerbert kam er nach St. Balsien und 1809 mit der Umsiedlung der San-Blasianer Mönche nach St. Paul. Vielleicht erfuhr unsere Handschrift ein ähnliches Schicksal.'

(83) The manuscript is complete; it does not 'break off prematurely', as claimed by Wirbelauer, Zwei Päpste, p. 123 n. 50.

(84) See above, nn. 1–2.

(85) Cf. Maassen, Geschichte, pp. 509–10: 'Freilich finden sich die Vorrede des Dionysius und die Canonen der Apostel in zwei Handschriften, der kölner und der pariser 4279. Die Eigenschaft des Zusatzes wird aber in der letzteren selbst hervorgehoben. Es folgt nämlich erst nach den Canonen von Laodicea, die hier noch an die Canonen der Apostel sich anschliessen, der Titel der Sammlung in nomine sanctae trinitate etc.'

(86) I would speculate that the Dionysian preface and Can.apost. once also introduced Coll.Sanb. in Pl. This manuscript, which currently wants its entire first quire (of eight folios, or sixteen pages), begins abruptly in the middle of CNIC.325.8. By comparison with Ko, we can determine that the Nicaean index and first 8.5 canons of CNIC.325 should have taken up roughly the same number of pages as the final 12.5 canons of CNIC.325 (in Ko the Nicaean index + CNIC.325.1–81/2 fill six pages, while CNIC.325.82/2–21 also fill six pages, for a total of twelve pages). Since CNIC.325.82/2–21 fill five pages in Pl (fols 1r–3r; the Nicaean subscription list begins at the top of fol. 3v), we can assume that no more than one-third of its now missing first quire contained Nicaean material. This leaves at least ten pages in that quire that would have been free to contain material prefatory to CNIC.325. Now, in Ko, the Dionysian preface + Can.apost. fill (not counting Ko's initial, decorative page on fol. 1r) eighteen pages, which is exactly 50% more space than is taken up by CNIC.325 (canons plus index) in that manuscript. Incidentally, one arrives at this same ratio (3:2) when one compares the space used for these materials in Oxford, Bodleian Library, e Musaeo 103 (where the Dionysian preface + Can.apost. fill ten pages, and CNIC.325 fills approx. 6.5 pages). Assuming the same ratio holds for Pl, then something in the order of fifteen pages would have been required in Pl's missing quire to contain the Dionysian preface + Can.apost. (i.e. 1.5 times as many pages as were used in Pl for CNIC.325, which, as we have seen, would have filled around ten pages). This is slightly more than we calculated would have been available in the missing quire after accounting for all its Nicaean material; however, if we assume that the missing quire devoted only a modest amount of space to rubrication and decoration, then it is entirely possible―indeed, on the evidence of Ko and P4, I would suggest even probable―that this quire included the Dionysian preface and Can.apost.

(87) See above, n. 28.

(88) Wirbelauer, Zwei Päpste, pp. 127–28 and 133–34.

(89) EOMIA, I, 2.i, p. vii.

(90) EOMIA, I, 2.i, p. vii. The ancient and now lost Collectio Maasseniana (or versio Isidori) is described by Turner, 'Chapters in the history of Latin MSS of canons. V', pp. 338–39, and is catalogued by Kéry, Canonical collections, 1–5, under the title Corpus canonum Africanum-Romanum; see also Clavis canonum: selected canon law collections before 1140. Access with data processing, ed. L. Fowler-Magerl, MGH Hilfsmittel 21 (Hanover, 2005), pp. 24–7. This collection is the earliest collection of Latin canons known to have been produced in the West. The tradition is now represented in various ways by the collectiones Frisingensis prima, Diessensis, Wirceburgensis, Weingartensis and the latter half of Coll.Quesn. as found in V1. Turner collated the conciliar canons from all these collections under the siglum 'M', to which he added Berlin, Staatsbibliothek Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Phillipps 84.

(91) K. Zechiel-Eckes, ed., Die Concordia canonum des Cresconius. Studien und Edition, 2 vols, Freiburger Beiträge zur mittelalterlichen Geschichte 5 (Frankfurt am Main, 1992), II, p. 176 n. 15.

(92) That is, Ko exhibits contamination with the SD2 tradition of the Symmachiana: Wirbelauer, Zwei Päpste, pp. 180–81.

(93) Wirbelauer, 'Zum Umgang mit kanonistischer Tradition', pp. 214–17; see also Wirbelauer, Zwei Päpste, pp. 180–81.

(94) Wirbelauer, 'Zum Umgang mit kanonistischer Tradition', p. 214: 'Aufgrund der Verschiedenartigkeit des herangezogenen Materials und seiner teilweise geringen Verbreitung kommt als Entstehungsort der glossierten Vorlage nur Italien, genauer: Rom, in Frage.'

(95) D.A. Bullough, Alcuin: achievement and reputation (Leiden, 2004), p. 231; Wirbelauer, 'Zum Umgang mit kanonistischer Tradition', pp. 215–17, has suggested that Ko's exemplar was brought directly from Rome to Northumbria by an English pilgrim, perhaps Aldhelm, while David Ganz, 'Roman manuscripts in Francia and Anglo-Saxon England', in Roma fra oriente e occidente, Settimane di Studio 19–24 aprile 2001, Centro Italiano di Studi sull'alto Medioevo 49 (Spoleto, 2002), pp. 607–47, at pp. 627–28, has speculated that the exemplar was brought from Rome by Theodore himself. As we will see below, the type of half-uncial script in which Ko is (mostly) copied is believed to have been based on Italian models.

(96) Wirbelauer, 'Zum Umgang mit kanonistischer Tradition', pp. 15–16, has shown conclusively that the glossed exemplar of Ko was used for cc. 212–17 of the Collectio 400 capitulorum. On this collection, see Kéry, Collections, pp. 163–64. An edition of the Collectio 400 capitulorum in preparation by Sven Meeder.

(97) The summary glosses in Ko are written in the same pointed Insular minuscule used for copying out the last three lines of each page, and are typically added in the left margin at the beginning of the relevant chapter. All instances of summary glosses in Ko are listed here, and are numbered for ease of reference: 1. 'de non cito uiris excommonicandis', glossing CNIC.325.5 (fol. 12r); 2. 'deuites [pro diuites] fideles blasfemando accussat [sc. Eustathius]', glossing the preface to CGAN.355 (fol. 28v); 3. 'ut non sit eclesia nec offerri [sc. eucharistia] sines [sic pro sine] iusione episcopi', glossing CGAN.355.6 (fol. 29v); 4. 'ut episcopi praespiteri diaconi et subdiaconi se abstineant', glossing CCAR.419.3 (fol. 36v); 5. 'ut clerici non ad ussuram fenerent' glossing CCAR.419.5 (fol. 37r); 6. 'nullus clericorum in spectaculis ueniet nec se negotis saecularibus misceant', glossing CCAR.419.15 (fol. 39v); 7. 'nullum excommonicandum ante audientia', glossing CCAR.419.24 (fol. 40v); 8. 'qui libio [sic pro libri] in aecclesia leguntur' and 9. 'placuit etiam legi omnium martirum passiones cum anniuersaria omnium episcoporum', both glossing CCAR.419. 29 (fols 41v–42r); 10. 'episcopi alienam sedem precipiti temeritate [sc. appetentes]', glossing CSAR.347.2 (fol. 63r); 11. 'inter duos episcopos si litis orta fuerit', glossing CSAR.347.3 (fol. 63r); 12. 'episcopus in modicas ciuitates non fiant', glossing CSAR.347.4 (canon 5 in Ko; fol. 64r); 13. 'de appellatione episcoporum', glossing CSAR.347.4(3b) (canon 6 in Ko; fol. 64v); 14. 'ut episcopi ad comitatum [sc. imperatorium] non uadant', glossing CSAR.347.5 (canon 7 in Ko; fol. 64v); 15. 'priuari honore euntes ad commitatum si non ulla causa', glossing CSAR.347.7 (canon 10 [though unnumbered] in Ko; fol. 66r); 16. 'quomodo laici promoueantur [sc. ad episcopatum]', glossing CSAR.347.8 (canon 12 in Ko; fol. 66v); 17. 'ut episcopus in aliena XXI dies non amplius resedeat', glossing CSAR.347.9 (canon 13 in Ko; fol. 67r); 18. 'de capua beneueniet [sic pro beneuento] et neapolim legati romanorum', glossing the subscriptions to CSAR.347 (fol. 69r); 19. 'ut episcopatum ordinem non contemnat', glossing CANT.328.18 (canon 17 in Ko; fol. 74r); 20. 'neque a populo uim passus', glossing CANT.328.21 (canon 20 in Ko; fol. 74v); 21. 'ut nulli episcoporum liceat successorem sibi facere', glossing CANT.328.23 (canon 22 in Ko; fol. 75r); 22. 'non est sapientia nisi in patientia fuerit structa' and 'testimonium clerici aduersus laicum non admitti', glossing Const.Silv. (SK1, p. 244, lines 181 and 187) (fol. 80r–v); 23. 'de monachis et de monachas', glossing DSIR.384.255, c. 7 (fol. 96v); 24. 'ut laici non inponantur clericis in honore ecclesiae' and 25. 'de laicis non cito faciendis episcopis', glossing DCEL.422.371, c. 2 (ad loca 'si qui his præfuturi' and 'unde et illum decipiat') (fols 104v–105r); 26. 'sacerdotes falleis utentibus [sic pro palliis utentes] repraehendit', glossing DCEL.422.369, c. 2 (fols 105v–106v); 27. 'de penitentia ultimo tempore', glossing DCEL.422.369, c. 3 (fol. 106r); 28. 'latronem commemoratur positum penitu [sic] ipse et domino promittente paradissum meruisse', glossing DCEL.422.369, c. 3 (ad loc. 'Perdidisset latro') (fol. 106v); 29. 'ut episcopus populum doceat', glossing DINN.401.286, c. 2 (ad loc. 'Ergo quoniam non pro nobis') (fol. 109v); 30. 'incipiunt inquisitiones', glossing DLEO.440.544, c. 1 (fol. 125r).

(98) At least one of them―namely that found on fol. 135r, a sort of bibliographical note glossing the Chalcedonian definition of faith―was copied by the scribe from his exemplar; see above, n. 71. Accordingly, I have not included this gloss in the above list. I also note that Munier, ed., Africae, p. 118, reports that gloss no. 5 occurs in P; could he be in error here, reporting P instead of Ko? Not withstanding these facts, and the suggestion by Wirbelauer (noted above) that Ko's exemplar was 'already littered with glosses', I see no reason to believe that the thirty examples listed above in the above note were added early, as opposed to late, in the Ko tradition. They may even have originated in Ko itself.

(99) While the glossator reveals a general interest in canons that place restrictions of the clergy's conversatio (nos 3, 4, 5, 6, 26, 27, 29), he shows particular interest in canons that limit episcopal privileges, including regulating episcopal elections (nos 12, 16, 19, 21, 24, 25), restricting their right of appeal (nos 11, 13, 14, 15), and prohibiting their ability to visit/transfer to other sees (nos 10, 17, 20). These preoccupations overlap strikingly well with the disputes that arose as a result of Wilfrid's appointment and subsequent deposition as bishop of Northumbria. Wilfrid's litigiousness led him frequently to appeal (successfully) to Rome the judgements made against him by the Anglo-Saxon church. For a brief summary of these affairs see C. Cubitt, 'Wilfrid's "usurping bishops": episcopal elections in Anglo-Saxon England c. 600–c.800', Northern history 25 (1989), 18–38, and W. Goffart, The narrators of barbarian history (A.D. 550–800): Jordanes, Gregory of Tours, Bede, and Paul the Deacon (Princeton, NJ, 1988; repr. in paperback with supplementary preface, Notre Dame, IN, 2005), pp. 235–328. That Wilfrid was exceedingly wealthy (a fact which may have helped provoke some of his conflicts) could explain glosses 2, 5 and 6. Procedural and jurisdictional questions which may have arisen as a result of Wilfrid's conflict with Theodore and frequent appeals to Rome might be reflected in glosses 1, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15.

(100) The text has been occasionally glossed and corrected, by both the scribe and by later hands: Wirbelauer, 'Zum Umgang mit kanonistischer Tradition', p. 214. The claim by some scholars (Codices latini antiquiores: a palaeographical guide to Latin manuscripts prior to the ninth century, 11 vols, plus supplement, ed. E.A. Lowe [Oxford, 1934–1971; 2nd ed. of vol. 2 publ. 1972], VIII, no. 1163; R. Bergmann and S. Stricker, Katalog der althochdeutschen und altsächsischen Glossenhandschriften, 6 vols (Berlin, 2005), II, no. 355) that there are 'several scribes' appears to be untrue.

(101) N. Netzer, 'Willibrord's scriptorium at Echternach and its relationship to Ireland and Lindisfarne', in St Cuthbert, his cult and his community to AD 1200, eds G. Bonner, D. Rollason and C. Stancliffe (Woodbridge, 1989), pp. 203–12, at p. 212.

(102) J. Blackhouse, 'Birds, beasts and initials in Lindisfarne's Gospel Books', in St Cuthbert, his cult and his community, eds Bonner-Rollason-Stancliffe, pp. 165–74, at pp. 170–71; G. Henderson, From Durrow to Kells: the Insular Gospel-books, 650–800 (London, 1987), pp. 57–97 (esp. 88–91 and 96), 104 and 147; G. Haseloff, 'Insular animal styles with special references to Irish art in the early medieval period', in Ireland and Insular art AD 500–1200. Proceedings of a conference at University College Cork, 31 October–3 November 1985, ed. M. Ryan (Dublin, 1987), pp. 44–55, at p. 47; G.L. Micheli, L'enluminure du haut moyen âge et les influences irlandaises (Brussels, 1939), pp. 22, 47, 123, 132, 134 and 140.

(103) D. Ó Cróinín, 'Rath Maelsigi, Willibrord and the earliest Echternach manuscripts', Peritia 3 (1984), 17–49; Henderson, Durrow to Kells, pp. 88–91 and 96; N. Netzer, Cultural interplay in the eighth century: the Trier Gospels and the making of a scriptorium at Echternach, Cambridge studies in palaeography and codicology 3 (Cambridge, 1994), p. 6 with n. 26; D.N. Dumville, A palaeographer's review: the Insular system of scripts in the early Middle Ages (Osaka, 1999), pp. 84–101; M. P. Brown, The Lindisfarne Gospels: society, spirituality and the scribe, The British Library studies in medieval culture (Toronto, 2003), pp. 42–55.

(104) Haseloff, 'Insular animal styles', p. 48; Brown, Lindisfarne Gospels, p. 49.

(105) T.J. Brown, 'Palaeography of the manuscript', p. 16.

(106) Wirbelauer, 'Zum Umgang mit kanonistischer Tradition', p. 214 n. 21 argues very persuasively, based on the suggestion of P.G. Schmidt, that the scribe of Ko 'bemüht war, den Seitenumbruch seiner Vorlage zu erhalten. In der Tat bestünde mit dem Wechsel in die Kursive eine größere Flexibilität, dieses Ziel zu erreichen. Auch optisch-ästhetische Überlegungen könnten eine Rolle gespielt haben. Die drei kursiven Zeilen am Seitenende wirken durch ihre größere Buchstabendichte wie ein Fundament, auf dem die übrigen Zeilen ruhen.'

(107) N. Brooks, 'The Northumbrian church', in The making of England. Anglo-Saxon art and culture AD 600–900, eds L. Webster and J. Blackhouse (Toronto, 1991), pp. 108–10, at p. 109.

(108) T.J. Brown, 'Palaeography of the manuscript', pp. 26–7.

(109) J. Hofmann, 'Altenglische und althochdeutsche Glossen aus Würzburg und dem weiteren angelsächsischen Missionsgebiet', in Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 85 (1963), 27–131, at pp. 43–4.

(110) Bullough, Alcuin, p. 231 n. 309. It should be noted that Wirbelauer's claim (Zwei Päpste, p. 180) that the Regula formatarum (in Coll.Sanb. c. VII; cf. Coll.Quesn. c. LXIII) written on the extraneous fol. 169v of Cologne 212 by a hand of s. vii/viii (cf. Maassen, Geschichte, pp. 575–76) was copied from Ko, fols 47v–48v, cannot be true, as a comparison of the two texts reveals significant differences between their copies.

(111) A.N. Doane, apud Doane and T.J. Grade, eds, Anglo-Saxon manuscripts in microfiche facsimile 9: deluxe and illuminated manuscripts containing technical and literary texts (Tempe, Arizona, 2001), pp. 37–8; the more so if the flyleaf of Cologne 212 containing the ninth-century entry 'In dei nomen Hildibaldus' is, as Doane indicates, not original to that codex.

(112) H. Tiefenbach, Xanten–Essen–Köln. Untersuchungen zur Nordgrenze des Althochdeutschen an niederrheinischen Personennamen des neunten bis elften Jahrhunderts, Studien zum Althochdeutschen 3 (Göttingen, 1984), pp. 306–08.

(113) Tiefenbach, Xanten–Essen–Köln, pp. 307–08.

(114) Tiefenbach, Xanten–Essen–Köln, pp. 306–07. Thus does Cologne 212 bear the ninth-century addition 'In dei nomen hildebaldus' on its first flyleaf.

(115) It is interesting, though perhaps only coincidence, that the earliest known witness to the Collectio 400 capitulorum―which drew directly upon Ko's exemplar; see above, n. 96―was a Metz manuscript, Bibliothèque municipale, 236 (olim E.29), which was dated to the Rhineland, s. viiiex/ix, before it was lost in the Second World War.

(116) M. Lapidge, 'The school of Theodore and Hadrian', in Anglo-Latin literature 600–899 (London, 1996), pp. 141–68, at pp. 149–68; repr. from Anglo-Saxon England 15 (1986).

(117) See Lapidge, 'School of Theodore', 154 et passim.

(118) J.H. Hessels, ed., A late eighth-century Latin-Anglo-Saxon glossary preserved in the library of the Leiden university (MS. Voss. Q° Lat. no. 69) (Cambridge, 1906). The biblical glosses from numerous 'Leiden-family' manuscripts were recently edited in Glossae biblicae, 2 vols, ed. P. Vaciago, CCCM 189 (Turnhout, 2004).

(119) Lapidge, 'School of Theodore', p. 160, pp. 164–67.

(120) By the kind offices of the editors of the Dictionary of Old English.

(121) Lapidge, 'School of Theodore', p. 150.

(122) Lapidge, 'School of Theodore', p. 153.

(123) Lapidge, 'School of Theodore', p. 153.

(124) Lapidge, 'School of Theodore', pp. 161–62. As will be seen, the evidence for the influence of Coll.Sanb. on the glosses is not as strong as Lapidge initially believed. It should be noted that Lapidge himself admitted to allowing the evidence of PTHU.700 (on which see below) to influence his opinion here.

(125) M. Brett, 'Theodore and the Latin canon law', in Archbishop Theodore: commemorative studies on his life and influence, ed. M. Lapidge, CSASE 11 (Cambridge, 1995), pp. 120–40, p. 132, admits that 'Strictly, there is no decisive method of excluding the Hadriana itself as a source for Leiden, for the manuscript of the glossary is almost certainly later than 774, and the differences between the “pure” Dionysiana and the later version which can be shown to be relevant to the glossary are all also found in the Hadriana. Nevertheless, it is far more probable that Leiden depends on a Dionysiana which had received some of the additions and alterations later found in the Hadriana than on the Hadriana itself. No other source as late as 774 has yet been identified in Leiden, and the latest element in the Hadriana proper, Gregory II's council of 721, cannot be shown to have been used by the glossator'. This final qualification seems unwarranted, since not only is the text of Rome (721) very short and expressed in a very simplified Latin (and therefore would be less deserving of gloss), but it is by far the latest text typically found in Coll.Dion.-Hadr., most other components of that collection originating no later than the sixth century. The absence of readings from Rome (721) in the Leiden glossary, or in any glossary, for that matter, is therefore not diagnostic of the absence of influence from Coll.Dion.-Hadr. Moreover, Brett himself provides a clue to the possibility that Leiden was influenced by Rome (721) when he notes (p. 130 n. 37) that Leiden's lemma 'presbytera' (Hessel no. I.104) is glossed not according to its original context―in CLAO.300.11, where the meaning is roughly 'priestess'―but rather as 'uxor presbyter'. Brett interprets this is evidence of the influence of Gregory's Dialogues on this gloss, but perhaps a more likely source is the first canon of Rome (721), which reads 'Si quis presbyteram duxerit in coniugium, anathema sit. Et responderunt omnes tertio: Anathema sit.' Note that Brett's reference to the lemma 'genuini' as comprising possible evidence for the presence of Rome (721) in the Paris glossary's source is an error which seems to be based on the misplacement of Brett's footnote 53 on p. 135; as the footnote itself makes clear, the lemma in question comes not from Rome (721) but from the synodal letter that prefaces CGAN.355 in some collections.

(126) Brett, 'Theodore and the Latin canon law', pp. 130–33, noting in particular (p. 132) that a modified Dionysian collection like the one that stands behind Rome, Biblioteca nazionale centrale, Sessor. LXIII (s. ix2/4, Nonantola), 'would provide 129 of the 133 words glossed in the Leiden [69] glossae collectae from councils.' Brett refers to the Novara collection rather unhelpfully as the 'Vaticana', which is the name used by Schwartz, who edited the collection in ACO, II. The Novara collection, which is primarily a collection of conciliar and creedal documents pertaining to CCHA.451, is not to be confused with the Collectio canonum Vaticana; see Kéry, Collections, pp. 25–6 and 39.

(127) Brett, 'Theodore and the Latin canon law', pp. 133–36, specifying 'the Quesnelliana, Freising or Saint-Maur collections, which alone have the "Isidorean" forms of both Nicaea and Antioch.' Note that Coll.Quesn. cannot account for at least one of the non-Dionysian readings that Brett found in the Paris glossary, namely 'thia' (on which see below).

(128) Brett, 'Theodore and the Latin canon law', p. 136.

(129) Brett, 'Theodore and the Latin canon law', p. 130, does acknowledge that, 'though both manuscripts show clear signs of a connection with Theodore, they are of the late eighth or ninth century, allowing in principle for a good deal of contamination.' He also notes (p. 130) that 'There may be some contamination of the text' found in Leiden 69.

(130) Cf. Brett, 'Theodore and the Latin canon law', p. 134: 'The early elements of the [Paris] glossary are arranged in part in the order of the councils of the source, each with its own rubric, though the later section, especially that part taken from the decretals, disintegrates into disorder.' In fact, there are multiple groups of canonical glosses in Leiden 69, and only the first group (Hessel's section I) is alphabetized; the two later groups (Hessel's sections XXXIX.53–73 and XLI.1–6), are not alphabetized. On the different groups of canonical glosses in the Leiden glossary, see Brett, 'Theodore and the Latin canon law', p. 130 nn. 36, 38. Lapidge argued, no doubt correctly, that Leiden's alphabetical arrangement was a more recent innovation, which in turn argues in favour of the Paris glossary's arrangement as representing the more primitive text, at least for the canonical glosses: Lapidge, 'School of Theodore', p. 152.

(131) As noted by Brett, 'Theodore and the Latin canon law', p. 134.

(132) Lapidge, 'School of Theodore', p. 152.

(133) Lapidge, 'School of Theodore', p. 160.

(134) In the course of analyzing all of the canonical glosses in the 'Leiden-family', one could also expect to discover a great deal about what sorts of canon law collections were being used by glossators who added subsequently to the tradition; that is, one could hope to further the important work already begun by Brett. One particularly important reason this should be done is to follow up on Brett's suggestion that the 'Leiden-family' may represent the earliest witness to the enlarged Coll.Dion.II tradition: Brett, 'Theodore and the Latin canon law', p. 133.

(135) EOMIA, I, 1, p. 11, line 3.

(136) Maassen, Geschichte, p. 409.

(137) Appears as two glosses in Paris 2685, but is really just one. The full gloss reads: 'Sub optentu . id est sub detentione uel sub districto rigore . Obtinens enim dicitur . qui strictim tenet'.

(138) EOMIA, I, 1, p. 11, lines 2–3, and p. 27, lines 19–20.

(139) Cf. Hessel nos I.2 and XXXIX.60, 'alea' and 'alae', from the rubric of Can.apost. 43 (Dion.II), and text of Can.apost. 41/42, respectively.

(140) EOMIA, I, 1, p. 29.

(141) Where the reading in Ko, fol. 4r is 'alatur'.

(142) EOMIA, I, 1, p. 16, line 4.

(143) EOMIA, II, 2, p. 59, line 8.

(144) EOMIA, II, 2, p. 178, lines 46–7.

(145) EOMIA, II, 2, pp. 198–99, lines 5–6.

(146) EOMIA, II, 2, p. 293, line 18.

(147) Thiel, Epistolae, p. 820.

(148) See Maassen, Geschichte, pp. 290–91.

(149) DSIM.468.574 is found only in the Avellana (see Maassen, Geschichte, p. 275); DFEL.483.608 is found only in the collection of Berlin, Staatsbibliothek Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Phillipps 1776 (Maassen, Geschichte, pp. 764–65); DLEO.440.426 and 444 are found only in the collection of Chalcedonian documents prepared by Rusticus (Maassen, Geschichte, pp. 745–51); DLEO.440.449 and 454 are found only in the Hispana and in V2 (Maassen, Geschichte, pp. 264–65); and DLEO.440.457 appears to be found only in the collectiones Grimanica and Ratisbonensis (ACO, II, 4, p. 33).

(150) See Maassen, Geschichte, pp. 138–39.

(151) EOMIA, I, 2, pp. 116–17, lines 6–9, and pp. 186–87, lines 4–7.

(152) See Die Canonessammlung des Dionysius Exiguus in der ersten Redaktion, ed. A. Strewe, Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 16 (Berlin, 1931), pp. 90–6. Strewe needlessly emends the MS reading 'thiam' (p. 91, line 17) to 'amitam'. The series of Nicaean canons attached to Atticus's letter was removed by Dionysius from subsequent versions of his collection (it is also absent from Coll.Dion.-Hadr.) and replaced with the following: 'Huic symbolo fidei [viz. Nicaean creed] etiam exemplaria statutorum eiusdem concilii Niceni a memoratis pontificibus adnexa sunt sicut superius per omnia continentur quae nos hic ea iterum conscribi necessarium non esse credidimus' (EOMIA, I, 1.ii, p. 108 [col. II]).

(153) ACO, II, 2.ii, p. 148, line 5, p. 180, line 37, and p. 199, line 22.

(154) EOMIA, I, 2.iii, p. 574, line 123, and p. 582, lines 275–76; see also Munier, ed., Africae, p. 91, lines 83–4, and p. 94, line 171.

(155) At least one witness of the enlarged Coll.Dion.II does, namely Rome, Biblioteca Vallicelliana, A.5 (s. ix3/4, Rome).

(156) The reading 'stipulatione' also found (but only once) in the collectiones Vaticana and Dionysiana-Bobiensis.

(157) See Maassen, Geschichte, p. 220.

(158) Wirbelauer, Zwei Päpste, p. 260, line 160.

(159) Ed. Munier, Africae, p. 42, line 177.

(160) Ed. Munier, Africae, pp. 185 and 335; see also Munier, ed., Africae, p. xxiii.

(161) Thiel, Epistolae, p. 163, quoting a letter from the bishops of Tarragona, printed by Thiel, Epistolae, pp. 157–58. The phrase 'praesertim quum ecclesia illius mancipii' can be found on p. 158.

(162) PL 54, col. 654C.

(163) EOMIA, I, 2, p. 262, line 17.

(164) See Maassen, Geschichte, p. 274.

(165) Maassen, Geschichte, p. 258.

(166) It is found, for instance, in a number of works by or concerning St Boniface, and in several early Carolingian capitularies.

(167) EOMIA, II, 2, pp. 372–73, lines 3–4.

(168) Ed. E. von Dobschütz, Das Decretum Gelasianum de libris recipiendis et non recipiendis in kritischem Text, Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur 38 (Leipzig, 1912), p. 57, line 333.

(169) Ed. G.D. Mansi, Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, 31 vols (Florence, 1759–1798; repr. with 22 additional volumes containing supplementary material, Paris and Leipzig, 1901–1927), XII, col. 264.

(170) See Concilia Galliae a. 511–a. 695, ed. C. de Clercq, CCSL 148A (Turnhout, 1963), p. 228.

(171) Maassen, Geschichte, 283.

(172) Maassen, Geschichte, pp. 306–07, also lists the collectiones Dionysiana-Bobiensis and Sancti Amandi.

(173) Appears as two glosses in Paris 2685, but is really just one. The full gloss reads: 'Infule . signum dignitatis pontificum . Infule enim dignitates dicuntur'.

(174) Ed. Coustant, Epistolae, p. 831.

(175) Ed. Theil, Epistolae, p. 368.

(176) Maassen, Geschichte, pp. 245–46.

(177) Maassen, Geschichte, p. 281.

(178) EOMIA, I, 2.iii, p. 605, line 161; see also Africae, ed. Munier, p. 160, line 96.

(179) EOMIA, I, 2.iii, p. 621, line 146; see also Africae, ed. Munier, p. 172, line 91.

(180) Lapidge, 'School of Theodore', p. 153.

(181) A few features of the Paris glossary, including a degree of abbreviation, suggest that it preserves a tradition that has been worked over: cf. below, n. 182, particularly the glosses to lemmata nos 5 and 7. Note also, however, that several glosses in Paris appear to be expansions upon the Canterbury original: see below, n. 182, glosses to lemmata nos 15–17.

(182) Lemmata nos 4, 10, 13, 14 are either identical or nearly identical in both glossaries. Lemmata nos 5 ('funestis') and 7 ('byrrus') are glossed similarly though not equally in each glossary ('funestis : mortiferis . uel scelestis' and 'byrrus : cuculla breuis' in Leiden; 'funestis . sceleratis' and 'birris . breuis' in Paris). Similarly, the glosses to lemma no. 11 are comparable, though not identical ('ptochiis in dispensationibus pauperum : uel negotia' and 'pitoicis : dispensatio pauperum' in Leiden [nos I.91 and XXXIX.58]; 'ptocus . dispositio quae pauperibus datur' in Paris). Three lemmata, nos 15–17, share similar glosses in each glossary, though Paris apparently added additional explanation: for lemma no. 15 ('philacteria') Paris adds 'custodia reliquiarum sicut fiunt parua retes in quibus alii ponunt reliquias sanctorum'; for lemma no. 16 ('infula') Paris adds 'signum dignitatis pontificum'; and for lemma no. 17 ('typum') Paris adds 'uel superbia'. This would seem to suggest that the 17 glosses identified in Table 4 have undergone modification in the Paris glossary. This hypothesis is supported by the fact that many lemmata found in oblique cases in the Leiden glossary (e.g. 'catalocum') have been normalized to the nominative case in Paris ('catalogus').

(183) The Dionysiana-Bobiensis, which follows Dion.I at this point, happens to omit the word 'funestis' from CANC.314.3.

(184) The preface contains, for example, the relatively rare words condecoro, intemeratus, iutus, pronius, inconvulsus, capesso and sparsim.

(185) According to Brett, 'Theodore and the Latin canon law', p. 131 n. 41, 'machomenus' (Hessel no. I.72) is found only in CCHA.451 in the enlarged Coll.Dion.II and Coll.Dion.-Hadr. Brett adduces (p. 131 n. 42) Leiden's 'olografia' (Hessel no. XXXIX.72) as evidence of an enlarged Coll.Dion.II as a source; in fact, the passage which contains this word originated in all four collections from Maassen's Italian group (i.e. collections deriving from the Collectio prisca, on which see above), where it immediately precedes the so-called Regula formatarum; see Maassen, Geschichte, pp. 400–01. It is therefore found in Coll.Sanb. c. VII (e.g., Ko, fol. 48r reads 'olografa').

(186) Namely lemmata nos 1–4, 6–7, 9–11 and 14–17.

(187) Namely lemmata nos 6–7, 10–11 and 13–16.

(188) Namely lemmata nos 6, 7, 10, 12, 16 and 17. Note that lemma no. 15 can be found in Coll.Sanb. in P and Lc (within DGEL.492.†700).

(189) Namely lemmata nos 1 ('catalogo', Ko, fol. 5r), 2 ('sub obtentu', Ko, fols 5r and 9r), 3 ('alatur', Ko, fol. 4r), 4 ('mancipantur', Ko, fol. 6v), 6 ('genuini decoris', Ko, fol. 28v), 7 ('birris', Ko, fol. 30r), 10 ('thia id est uel amita uel matertera', Ko, fol. 12r), 12 ('adstipulatione', Ko, fols 33v and 36r), 13 ('absidam', Ko, fol. 84r), 16 ('infulas', Ko, fol. 118v), and 17 ('tyfum', Ko, fols 47r and 50v). Note that lemma no. 15 can be found P4.

(190) Lapidge, 'School of Theodore', p. 149.

(191) On Aldhelm's career and education, see M. Lapidge, 'The career of Aldhelm', Anglo-Saxon England 36 (2007), 15–69, and G.T. Dempsey, 'Aldhelm of Malmesbury and high ecclesiasticism in a barbarian kingdom', Traditio 63 (2008), 47–88.

(192) See Lapidge, 'The career of Aldhelm', esp. 48, who describes Aldhelm's study of and participation in compiling some of the glossaries compiled at Canterbury. In this connection is it worth recalling that Wirbelauer, 'Zum Umgang mit kanonistischer Tradition', pp. 215–17, has speculated that it was Aldhelm himself who introduced into England the exemplar of Ko.

(193) Two major discoveries made in this area since the publication of Finsterwalder's edition are discussed below. See also C. Stancliffe, Bede, Wilfrid, and the Irish, Jarrow lecture (Jarrow, 2003), esp. pp. 12–32, who argues (p. 15) that an important source for Theodore was the Greek Syntagma XIV titulorum. See also R. Flechner, 'The making of the Canons of Theodore', Peritia 17–18 (2003–2004), 121–43, at pp. 135–38, for Theodore's use of the Libellus responsionum. P. W. Finsterwalder, ed., Die Canones Theodori Cantuariensis und ihrer Überlieferungsformen (Weimar, 1929), pp. 204–05, suggested the following canonical sources for PTHU.700: Can.apost., CANC.314, CNEO.315, CLAO.300, CANT.328, and Dionysius's 'African' canons. Note that if it is indeed the case that the Iudicia draw upon CLAO.300, this would mean that another collection besides/in addition to Coll.Sanb. was behind Theodore's sentences.

(194) So far as I know, nothing has yet been done with the intriguing discovery by Lapidge, 'School of Theodore', pp. 143 and 145, of a Theodorian poem about divorce that shares phraseology with PTHU.700.

(195) Brett, 'Theodore and the Latin canon law', pp. 128–29.

(196) See Bede, Historia ecclesiastica, I.29, ed. C. Plummer, Venerabilis Baedae opera historica, 2 vols (Oxford, 1896), I, p. 63; N. Brooks, The early history of the church of Canterbury: Christ Church from 597 to 1066 (Leicester, 1984), p. 9.

(197) EOMIA, I, 2.i, p. vii, and EOMIA, II, 2, p. viii (addendum to p. 112). See now Lapidge, 'School of Theodore', p. 162.

(198) For discussion of the term umbrensis see Lapidge, 'School of Theodore', pp. 144–45.

(199) Cf. the remarks by Flechner, 'Making of the Canons of Theodore', p. 125: 'despite being compiled relatively late, and perhaps in England, some of its [viz. PTHU.700] contents may have been deliberately archaised. As a result, the testimony of [PTHU.700] presents a double hazard: [PTHU.700] may be contaminated with later material, and there is always a risk of mistaking archaisms for genuine early material.' For further on the work of the discipulus, see T. Charles-Edwards, 'The penitential of Theodore and the Iudicia Theodori', in Archbishop Theodore, ed. Lapidge, pp. 141–74, and Flechner, 'Making of the Canons of Theodore', pp. 126–30.

(200) Brett, 'Theodore and the Latin canon law', p. 136 n. 58.

(201) A terminus post quem of ca 700 is based on the following arguments. The discipulus could not have compiled his penitential before, or much before, 700, since Theodore died in 690 and, while alive, presumably would not have suffered a penitential to circulate in his name that was not compiled directly by him. Furthermore, it seems that the discipulus was working from Theodorian penitential material that had been in circulation for some time already (see Flechner, 'Making of the Canons of Theodore', p. 126), which pushes the date of PTHU.700 forward even further towards (or possibly even after) 700. A terminus ante quem of ca 730 is based on the fact that PTHU.700.2 was appended to the Corbie redaction of Coll.vet.Gall., compiled in the second quarter of the eighth century.

(202) Lapidge, 'School of Theodore', p. 145.

(203) Lapidge, 'School of Theodore', pp. 144–45.

(204) See the ASCL article on the Symmachiana and Constitutum Silvestri.

(205) Discussing the means by which Coll.Sanb. could have been introduced from Italy into the North, Rosamond McKitterick speculates that 'it could have been over the Alps through Reichenau and St. Gall, as is suggested by Phillipps 17849 [Pl], conceivably from south-west Germany, and St. Paul in Carinthia 7. 1 [Sp], the Italian codex at Reichenau by the eighth century. But an alternative could be that the Sanblasiana was one of the texts brought from Italy by Northumbrian or Irish pilgrims and introduced to the Continent from thence by the Anglo-Saxon missionaries.' R. McKitterick, 'Knowledge of canon law in the Frankish kingdoms before 780: the manuscript evidence', Journal of theological studies 36 (1985), 87–117, at p. 117. On Italian manuscripts imported into England as early as the seventh century, see W. Levison, England and the Continent in the eighth century (Oxford, 1946), p. 135, and Ganz, 'Roman manuscripts'.

(206) For Wilfrid's biography see A. Thacker, 'Wilfrid [St Wilfrid] (c.634–709/10)', Oxford dictionary of national biography, online edition (www.oxforddnb.com, Oxford, 2008) (accessed 13 April 2012). See also =Cubitt, 'Wilfrid's "usurping bishops"', pp. 18–19. Though his overall thesis has been largely criticized by scholars, Goffart's chapter 'Bede and the ghost of Bishop Wilfrid' in his Narrators of barbarian history (pp. 235–328) remains a very useful study of Wilfrid's ecclesiastical career.

(207) Stancliffe, Bede, Wilfrid, and the Irish, p. 18, and see also p. 9. See also Goffart, Narrators of barbarian history, p. 280: 'Wilifrid and Benedict Biscop were unique in their generation for the intensity of their continental and Roman experiences.' Note that it was only a few decades previous to Wilfrid's stay in Lyon that the first recension of Coll.vet.Gall. had been compiled there: see H. Mordek, ed., Kirchenrecht und Reform im Frankenreich: die Collectio vetus Gallica, die älteste systematische Kanonessammlung des fränkischen Gallien. Studien und Edition, Beiträge zur Geschichte und Quellenkunde des Mittelalters 1 (Berlin, 1975), pp. 62–82.

(208) See above, n. 99. For the politics of English episcopal succession during Wilfrid's career, see Cubitt, 'Wilfrid's "usurping bishops"'.

(209) Cf. P.H. Blair, The world of Bede, second edition (Cambridge, 1990), p. 152: '[Wilfrid] was not a humble man ... perhaps he would have been more at home as a member of the Gallo-Roman episcopate where the wealth which gave him enemies in England would have passed unnoticed and where his interference in matters of state would have been less likely to take him to prison.' See also J.E. Campbell, 'Bede I', in Essays in Anglo-Saxon history, ed. J.E. Campbell, (London, 1986), pp. 1–28, at pp. 16–17.

(210) Roger Reynolds informs me that in general similarly lavish productions of canon law manuscripts before s. xi are rare, but for sake of comparison he points to two tenth-century Spanish copies of the Collectio Hispana: El Escorial, Real Biblioteca de San Lorenzo, D.I.1 and D.I.2. One could also compare the tenth-century Canterbury manuscript J, though, as fine as this volume is, it is far from the magnificence of Ko. A closer parallel than all of these may be seen in Toulouse, Bibliothèque municipale, MS 364 (I.63) (s. viimed, Albi), on which Turner (who was thoroughly acquainted with Ko) remarked: 'The merest glance at the Toulouse MS excites one's interest. Even now, when its margins have been cut down, it is of more than usual size, and among pre-Carolingian MSS of Canons I do not think I have ever seen one which so clearly proclaimed itself as written for an important person or Church': C.H. Turner, 'Chapters in the history of Latin MSS. II', The journal of theological studies 2 (1901), 266–73, at p. 266.

(211) On the relationship between Wilfrid and his student Willibrord, see Stancliffe, Bede, Wilfrid, and the Irish, p. 2 with n. 5. In this light one should recall the suggestion by McKitterick, 'Knowledge of canon law', p. 113, that the Sigeberht who signed Ko and Cologne 212 was a member of Willibrord's familia at Echternach.

(212) See, e.g., P. Fournier and G. le Bras, Histoire des collections canoniques en occident depuis les Fausses décrétales jusqu'au Décret de Gratien. Vol. I: de la réforme Carolingienne a la réforme Grégorienne, Bibliothèque de l'histoire du droit 4 (Paris, 1931), p. 95.

(213) Willibald, 'Vita Bonifatii', in Vitae sancti Bonifatii archiepiscopi Moguntini, ed. W. Levison, MGH SS rer. Germ. 57 (Hanover, 1905), pp. 1–58, at p. 30, lines 1–6: 'and [Pope Gregory] provided him with a little book, in which were arranged the most holy laws of ecclesiastical ordinance [collected] from episcopal councils, and he instructed that on the authority of this [book] he shall see that the episcopal order of learned institution remains inviolate, and that the people under his charge shall be instructed by its examples.' Both of Dionysius's prefaces are printed by Glorie, ed., Scriptores illyrici minores, pp. 39–42, who collates the readings of the editions by Maassen, Geschichte, pp. 960–62.

(214) M. Glatthaar, Bonifatius und das Sakrileg. Zur politischen Dimension eines Rechtsbegriffs, Freiburger Beiträge zur mittelalterlichen Geschichte 17 (Frankfurt am Main, 2004), p. 248, believes that Willibald was familiar with both forms of the preface (though his words are closer to the second), but either could not, or did not see the need, to distinguish between them in this instance.

(215) In an undated letter preserved only in the Codex Carolinus―a collection of papal correspondence with Frankish kings―Zacharias answers twenty-seven questions posed by Pippin III on matters of ecclesiastical law, drawing principally on the authority of the conciliar canons and papal decretals in Coll.Dion. (JE 2277; epistle 3 in the Codex Carolinus, in Epistolae Merowingici et Karolini aevi, ed. W. Gundlach, MGH Epp. 3 [Berlin, 1892], pp. 469–657, at pp. 479–87); see J.M. Wallace-Hadrill, The Frankish church (Oxford, 1983), pp. 164–65. Jasper, 'Decretal tradition', p. 105, discusses Zacharias's use of Coll.Dion. in this letter, but notes that already Zacharias's collection had features of the Coll.Dion-Hadr. Compare the unambiguos use of Coll.Dion. over two centuries earlier by pope John II in his correspondence with Caesarius of Arles: Maassen, Geschichte, pp. 297, 437; Wurm, Studien, p. 44; and Jasper, 'Decretal tradition', p. 68 n. 288.

(216) Neither Maassen nor Glorie used Ko in their editions of the Dionysian prefaces.

(217) Scholars have determined that Boniface had frequent recourse to Coll.Dion., Coll.Hib., and Coll.vet.Gall. For Coll.Dion., see Glatthaar, Sakrileg, pp. 248–52 and 493–502; for Coll.Hib., see Glatthaar, Sakrileg, pp. 84–6, 457–60 et passim (adducing the evidence of MS W4 and the Sententiae Bonifatianae Wirceburgenses/Palatinae), and L.M. Davies, 'The "mouth of gold": Gregorian texts in the Collectio canonum Hibernensis', in Ireland and Europe in the early middle ages: texts and transmission, eds P. Ní Catháin and M. Richter (Dublin, 2002), pp. 249–67, at p. 25 (adducing the evidence of Boniface's letters); and for Coll.vet.Gall., see Glatthaar, Sakrileg, pp. 372–92.

(218) See Levison, ed., Vitae sancti Bonifatii, p. x.

Last updated: 20 | 08 | 2012