The collection behind the Ashburnhamensis and the collection in Paris, BnF, lat. 3858C

At first the collections in the Mss Florence, BML Ashburnham 1554 (LM) and Paris, BN lat. 3858C (MY) seem to have nothing in common other than the fact that both are of middle length, with no apparent system, and both were compiled toward the beginning of the second half of the 11th century. The most recent text in the Florence manuscript is attributed to Gregory VII, although it is not in the collection itself; the most recent in MY is from pope Alexander II. John Gilchrist noted on several occasions that the two collections have a considerable number of canons in common and the present analyses of LM and MY confirms the observation. The order in which these canons appear in the two manuscripts is quite different, however. The collections are of particular interest because of the nature of the no longer existent or not yet identified collection (lm/my) used separately by both compilers.

In the Ms Paris 3858 C the collection is preceded by a capitulation in two sections, one with 482 rubrics and one with 98. Following the second section, on fol. 56–88, is a 5th or 6th century chronological collection of conciliar canons unique to this manuscript, the Collectio Parisiensis. The canons of this early collection have nothing to do with the conciliar canons following LM in the Ms Florence. LM has no capitulation. Its canons are divided into titles, but neither titles nor canons are numbered. LM has been described as a collection in two parts because of conciliar decrees which follow the collection, 149 but neither the conciliar canons nor LM is referred to as pars or liber and the conciliar canons are in no way attached to LM.

The collection lm/my was compiled with certainty at or near Rome. As will be seen, it was one of the earliest Roman collections of the reform period. The Ashburnham manuscript is thought to have been copied at a Benedictine monastery near Rome. Among the canons common to LM and MY (these will be referred to as lm/my in the following description) are several which are notably similar to canons in the Roman collections of Atto of San Marco and Deusdedit. The readings of the canons taken from the 74T in lm/my are close to those in the Ms Rome, Biblioteca Casanatense 2010, which is thought to have been copied near Rome. The rendering of 74T 7 ends in all three manuscripts with the unusual mercennarius mercede sua. The readings of canons in LM are in general closer to the material sources than are the readings of the same canons in MY.

MY was completed in northern France. It contains on fol. 37v a canon attributed to the Roman historian Livius. Andreas Schminck argues that the knowledge of the classics which would have been necessary to create this forgery points to the provinces of Tours, Sens or Reims. MY contains a large block of canons from the Sinemuriensis and with canon 428 begins the long excerpt from the letter De nuptiis of Hincmar of Reims, a text found in this length only in the Collectio Sinemuriensis and its derivatives. LM does not contain any of the texts from the Sinemuriensis.

Both LM and MY begin (and presumably lm/my began) with series of canons from the 74T and continue with a mixture of canons from the 74T, the 4L and texts also found in the A Aucta form of the collection of Anselm of Lucca. The rearrangement of the canons of the 74T and 4L is highly significant. All those canons regarding the papacy, which in the original 74T and 4L are spread throughout the collections, are here brought together at the beginning of the collection. Then follow canons involving the ordination of bishops and accusations against them. The titles regarding the authority of the privileges bestowed by the Roman church and specifically the privileges bestowed on monasteries, titles of central importance to the compilers of the 74T and 4L, are found toward the end of the collections. It seems as if lm/my was a first attempt to turn the 74T and 4L into „Roman“ collections.

The Ashburnham manuscript contains material from northern France not in the Paris manuscript. This testifies to the flow of information 150 in both directions common in the late 11th century. Preceding LM in the manuscript is the prologue associated with Ivo of Chartres and a fragment of a letter of Ivo (nr. 287). This is followed by a number of texts, including the liturgical canon attributed to pope Gregory VII, In die resurrectionis, in the longer form with the reference to teutonici.

Literature:

For a more detailed comparison of the two collections see Fowler-Magerl, The Relationship, pp. 241–260. For the Ms Ashburnham 1554 see Fournier – Le Bras, Histoire 2.135–139. See also John Gilchrist, Eleventh and Early Twelfth Century Canonical Collections and the Economic Policy of Gregory VII, Studi Gregoriani 9 (1972), p. 405. Idem, The Reception Part I p. 44. – For the Collectio Parisiensis see Charles Munier, La tradition littéraire des dossiers africains, RDC 29. 2–4 (1979), pp. 41–52. For the African councils in the Ms Florence Ashburnham 1554 see Hubert Mordek, Kirchenrecht und Reform, p. 251. – For the copy in the Ms Paris 3858C see Andreas Schminck, Livius als Kanonist, Rechtshistorisches Journal 1 (1982), pp. 154–164. – Kéry, Canonical Collections, p. 278.

Categories

• mss based entries
• split?

Categories for LM (semi-automatic)

• key is LM
• belongs to:
• very small (less than 100 canons) collection
• from Rome
• from Central Italy
• terminus post quem 1040
• terminus ante quem 1060
• saec. XI

Categories for MY (semi-automatic)

• key is MY
• belongs to: 74T derivatives
• small (100 to 500 canons) collection
• terminus post quem ?
• terminus ante quem ?
• saec. ?