Collectio Sanctae Genovevae analysis

Collectio Sanctae Genovevae (not in Rolker)

https://data.mgh.de/databases/clavis/wiki/index.php/Collectio_canonum_Sancte_Genoveve

Collection compiled in Northern France probably in the early twelfth century extant only in one manuscript. Fournier established that it draws on both Burchard and Ivo. Landau, Dekret p. 35 added that a "French" version of Ivo was used. the Burchard version used has never been studied, except that Jasper observed that Seligenstadt canons 1-20 are found after Burchard 19.159.

Fournier's observation is, as so often, correct. Given that Ivo's Decretum contains most of Burchard's Liber decretorum, the combination of the two works may seem like an odd choice, but it is the best explanation for the content and structure of the collection. Given that much material in the first extant book of the collection was gathered in the first Arsenal collection one could wonder whether it was used for the canons Fournier thought to come from Ivo. The Arsenal collection (unknown to Fournier) was compiled presumably by Ivo in the mid-1090s as a preparatory work for his Decretum and contains most non-Burchardian material already in the sequence of the Decretum; these passages can easily be confused with the respective Decretum passages. However,

The material on baptism in the first section that is still extant (the second book of the first part; GE01.02) manifestly draws on Ivo. Much material is not found in any earlier collection, and some misattributions, while not found in Ivo, can be explained by the use of Ivo. Only the Decretum contains all these materials, Tripartita and Panormia cannot have been the formal source. If one looks only at the canons on baptism, the first Arsenal collection in theory could have provided the material as all the canons in question here are already found in this preparatory collection Ivo had compiled for his Decretum at a relatively late stage of the work. However, other passages of the collection make clear that indeed a mature version of Ivo's Decretum was used, not the preparatory collection partly extant in Arsenal 713. The last canons from GE01.02 are taken from Ivo who in turn partly relied on Burchard, partly the Arsenal collection; no canon is found in both these sources of Ivo, but all are found towards the end of the first book of Ivo's Decretum. Although the sequence is not always that of Ivo, not other known collection could have served as the formal source of the Sainte-Genéviève Collection.

• fol. 50v Cavendum et summopere = Burchard 1.21 in Kurzform: Cavendum et summopere […] per os dicat Gregorii. Cur non perpendit quod benedictio illi in maledictionem convertitur. Et alibi. Dolens inquit […] diu stare non poterit.
• fol. 51r: Auf GE02.01.021 (= BU01.023) folgt GE02.01.022 (= BU01.024), also nicht das in manchen Handschriften zu findende Zusatzkapitel Si episcopus.
• fol. 60v GE02.01.095 = BU01.112 in Kurzfassung und mit der Lesart datis vel acceptis. Danach folgt BU01.113, nicht Erga simoniacos.
• fol. 76r endet das Buch mit GE02.01.217.02 = BU01.234, keine Zusätze
• fol. 81v BU02.018-24 in normaler Reihenfolge (nicht ""18, 23, 19-22, 24""), nur c. 19 fehlt
• fol. 96v-98r GE02.02.182-216 entspricht bis auf wenige Auslassungen der Frankfurter Ordnung, nicht der des Vatikanischen Doppelcodex. Es folgt als 217 ein Auszug aus der Isidor zugeschriebenen Epistola ad Leudefredum (ed. Reynolds), die sich auch in einigen anderen Sammlungen der Zeit finden (Burdegalensis, 17L, Turiner 7L, Wolfenbütteler 9L)
• fol. 43v Anders als in vielen v.a. italienischen Kopien ist nach GE01.04.087 (= BU03.14) nicht Burchard 3.15A Pervenit ad me (ein Auszug aus JE 1317) zu finden.
• Von den letzten Kapiteln von Burchards Buch 3 sind so wenige enthalten, dass keine Aussage über die Frankfurter Ordnung möglich ist.
• Kein Synodalordo am Ende von Burchards Buch 3
• Arbor fol. 110r ganz am Ende des Buches (Burchard 7 = 3. Buch des 2. Teils)
• Burchards Buch 9 wies nicht die deteriores-Lücke auf.
• Burchards Buch 12 wurde nicht in GE übernommen, daher keine Aussage über Lücke dort möglich (aber unwahrscheinlich mit Blick auf Buch 9)

Siehe hier https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bwTn8CAM9qAeOrfvja9lvn7EWeJY4SFUavJZ7Ev-MoE/edit?gid=0#gid=0