Summa ‘Omnis qui iuste iudicat’sive Lipsiensis ed. by Rudolf Weigand (†), Peter Landau, and Waltraud Kozur

Abstract

Reviewed by: Summa ‘Omnis qui iuste iudicat’sive Lipsiensis ed. by Rudolf Weigand (†), Peter Landau, and Waltraud Kozur Kenneth Pennington Summa ‘Omnis qui iuste iudicat’sive Lipsiensis. 3 tomes. Tome 1: Edited by Rudolf Weigand (†), Peter Landau, and Waltraud Kozur, with the collaboration of Stefan Häring, Karin Miethaner, and Martin Petzolt; Tome 2: Edited by Peter Landau and Waltraud Kozur, with the collaboration of Stefan Häring, Heribert Hallermann, Karin Miethaner-Vent, and Martin Pezolt; Tome 3: Edited by Peter Landau, Waltraud Kozur, and Karin Miethaner-Vent. [Monumenta Iuris Canonici, Series A: Corpus Glossatorum, Vol. 7/1–3.] (Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana. 2007, 2012, 2014. Pp. xlvi, 557, $90.00, ISBN 978-88-210-0808-9; pp. xlvii, 422, $110.00, ISBN 978-88-210-0898-6; pp. 459, €60,00, ISBN 978-88-210-0924-2.) A team of scholars assembled by Rudolf Weigand in Würzburg has labored many years on texts of canon law from Northern Europe in the twelfth century. Weigand died in 1998, but his passion for medieval canon law and its manuscript traditions lives on. The first volume of the projected four volumes of the edition was published in 2007. The text is anonymous but was written by a French or Anglo-Norman canonist at the beginning of the last quarter of the twelfth century. Trying to identify the authors of anonymous legal texts has been an ongoing project in legal history, pursued most vigorously by André Gouron (†2009) and Peter [End Page 389] Landau. Landau has recently argued that a little-known canonist named Rodoicus Modicipassus wrote the Summa ‘Omnis qui iuste iudicat.’ The work has been introduced by four “summaries” in English, French, Italian, and Spanish, followed by a foreword in German. One may wonder why multilingual summaries are necessary for a work in Latin. Nevertheless, there are interesting differences among them. The author of the English version (2014) claims that the work “is the major canonistic work of the twelfth century” (“changed from one of the major” in 2007), the French “une œuvre canonique majeure du XIIe siècle,” whereas the Italian author thinks that the work is “come opera di particolare rilievo nella canonistica del XII secolo.” The Spanish version declares “puede considerarse como una obra maestro de la canonística del siglo XII.” The German “Vorwort” avoids making any evaluation of the text’s importance. One may make an argument for the Italian summary’s generalization, but the English version is simply wrong (Gratian, Rufinus, Huguccio?). Not only is much of the text derivative of Bolognese jurisprudence but also there are only two complete manuscripts of the work. Two manuscripts (two others are incomplete) do not argue for a wide audience or broad significance. Since the Summa is heavily dependent upon Bolognese canonists, as the editors note in their introductions to the volumes and helpfully illustrate in the critical apparatus, the sources from which the author borrowed passages and ideas were Rufinus, Stephen of Tournai, Simon of Bisignano, and Johannes Faventinus—the major figures of the time. It has yet to be proven that Huguccio borrowed from the Summa. Huguccio read the same jurists. The transcriptions of the manuscripts are well done and accurate. There are, however, quibbles. Stephan Kuttner’s guidelines for editions in the Monumenta iuris canonici are altered. The most significant departure, and for this reviewer the most troubling, was to substitute line numbers for footnote numbers in the apparatus fontium. It is hoped that future editors will not follow this example, as it can be annoyingly difficult to find the citations—particularly on pages with many citations. Kuttner would have thought that the editors followed the abbreviations in the manuscripts too closely. The rationale for always expanding “infra” from the manuscripts’ “ia” and “supra” from “sa,” and never expanding e. and d., is opaque at best. Worse, it will confuse or stymie new readers of these texts. Apparatus fontium of legal texts can be difficult. The editors do a good job tracking down allegations in canon law but sometimes miss those for Roman law. This medieval canonist’s vague citations to Justinian’s later legislation betray his lack of knowledge...