Peter Landau
Pope Alexander III arrived in Venice on May 9, 1177 and stayed there until October 16, 1177—more than five months.1 His main achievement during this period was his meeting with the Emperor Frederick Barbarossa on July 24 to 25 and an ensuing peace treaty.2 One day after this meeting he announced the results of the negotiations to the apostolic delegate Roger, Archbishop of York, and to Hugh, Bishop of Durham,3 a letter which constitutes our main source for these memorable events. Eleven days later he sent a similar letter to Richard, Archbishop of Canterbury, and his suffragans.4 On June 15 and August 2 he wrote two further letters to Roger of York and Bishop-elect Geoffrey of Lincoln which discussed an agreement between the two bishops and advised them to look for the payment of tithes by a British nunnery.5 Roger of York held a prominent place among Alexander’s correspondents in the year 1177; he had served as apostolic delegate since 1164.6 The pope, however, also wanted to control Archbishop Roger’s activities as ecclesiastical judge and administrator. On June 30 he sent a letter to Abbot Robert of the Cistercian abbey of Fountains in Yorkshire and to Magister Vacarius, probably the most learned expert in legal questions in England during these years.7
This letter has been preserved in many English, French, and Italian decretal collections of the time, probably appearing first in the Collectio Cantabrigensis in 1178.8 It then made its way into the Breviarium decretalium of Bernard of Pavia and finally into Gregory’s IX Liber Extra in 1234.9 The decretal letter deals with a case involving questions of marriage and adultery.10 A parishioner of Norman descent (Andegavensis) from the diocese of York had appealed to the pope with the aid of his brother. He explained that a certain W. de Romare had once captured him, imprisoned him “in vinculis ferreis,” and forced him to give a promise under oath to marry a certain woman.11 After being released from prison, however, he had married another woman with whom he had some children. The woman to whom he had first promised marriage then complained to Archbishop Roger of York, who exacted an oath from the Norman husband that he would abstain from living with the second woman whom he had married, until he received an ecclesiastical judgment in his lawsuit.12 In the meantime the woman who made the accusation died, but the Norman man, obviously very scrupulous, did not dare to return to his wife and his children. Having no confidence in Roger of York, he appealed to the pope.13 Alexander III appointed the abbot of Fountains and Vacarius as judges delegate; he must have known that the abbot was trained in difficult questions of canon law. The papal mandate advises the judges to base their decisions on which of two possibilities was valid. If the man had been forced to swear, had not consented to the marriage, and had not had intercourse later with the first woman, he should be allowed to return to the second woman, the mother of his children. But if there had been a marriage with the first woman, either by consent or by copula carnalis, he should be forbidden to return to the second woman and be threatened with excommunication for any violation of the prohibition. He should, however, have the option of marrying another woman, his adultery not being punished by an interdiction of another marriage.14
The main point of this decretal is Alexander’s interdiction of marriage for a couple which had previously lived in an adulterous quasi-marriage even after the death of the first wife.15 It was a controversial question in canon law up to the end of the twelfth century, as Bernard of Pavia wrote in his Summa decretalium: “Si vero quaeratur de eo, qui sua uxore relicta aliam sibi coniugis nomine copulavit, et defuncta prima vult habere secundam, variae super hoc inveniuntur doctorum opiniones.”16 Alexander III placed more confidence in the abbot’s and Vacarius’ skills as examining judges than in those of Roger of York. Fountains Abbey must have had a certain reputation at the papal curia as a centre of knowledge in canon law in 1177.
The best testimony for the great interest in canon law taken by the monks of Fountains Abbey is the so-called Collectio Fontanensis, a collection of decretals put together in Fountains Abbey around 1180 and preserved in a manuscript donated by Archbishop Laud to Oxford’s Bodleian Library.17 Among the numerous decretal collections compiled in England after 1170 the Fountains Collection is the only one which was obviously compiled in a monastery, and it reflects the legal, intellectual, and economic interests of an important twelfth-century Cistercian abbey. It is the monastic decretal collection par excellence at least prior to the collection of Rainer of Pomposa during Innocent III’s pontificate.18 Walther Holtzmann discovered this collection during his work on the papal records in England in the 1930s,19 and it was still unknown to Stephan Kuttner when he published his famous “Repertorium der Kanonistik” in 1937. Charles Duggan gave the first description of the collection in 1963 in his book Twelfth-Century Decretal Collections.20 Holtzmann had prepared an analysis of the contents of this collection, which Christopher and Mary Cheney published posthumously in 1979 from his papers.21 For this chapter I was able to compare a photostat of the collection with Holtzmann/Cheney’s analysis.
The Bodleian manuscript is a miscellaneous one; the text of the Collectio Fontanensis is found on 21 folio pages.22 The collection has 146 chapters altogether, most of them decretals by Pope Alexander III, the only later text being a letter of Pope Lucius III to the general chapter of the Cistercians in 1182.23 There are some decretals by Innocent II, Eugenius III, and Adrian IV,24 conciliar canons from the 1148 Council of Reims, the 1163 Council of Tours, the 1175 Council of Westminster,25 and some isolated pre-Gratianic texts, e.g. a fragment from Gregory I’s register.26 The collection obviously concentrates on the “ius novum” of Alexander III’s pontificate.
Three scribes can be distinguished, dividing the whole compilation into three different parts.27 Originally these parts must have existed independently from one another because some decretals are found several times in the collection in those sections, sometimes in a different redaction of the text. Those three parts, however, form a unified whole in the manuscript. The same miniaturist copied the chapter initials in all three parts, and the scribe of the decretals in part II also wrote subject-rubrics for parts I and II. According to Holtzmann’s paleographical assessment, the script of the first and the third part can be dated to the late twelfth century, whereas the scribe of part II and of the rubrics is supposed to have written in the early thirteenth century.28 I have some doubts about the latter date because of the uncertainties of paleographical dating for this period—the rubrics reflect the beginnings of canonistic work on the decretals and are related in style to other rubrics in decretal collections between 1180 and 1190. I would conclude that the whole corpus of the collection with its 146 texts already formed a unified work prior to 1190.
The second part of the collection has a remarkable difference in style from the two other parts. Part II has 55 chapters; with two exceptions, the first 25 of these chapters, ending with the letter of Lucius III already mentioned, are not found in any other decretal collection.29 These unique texts begin with a general privilege for Fountains Abbey from Pope Innocent II in 1142 or 114330 with the remaining texts concerning Fountains Abbey or the exemption of the Cistercian order from the common law of the church, such as papal privileges for monastic tithes or the protection of the Cistercian estates divided into “granges.”31 The entire group of texts is a compilation of monastic law finding its meridian in the last chapter by Lucius III: a letter from the pope to the general chapter of the Cistercians assuring the order of his favorable inclination towards their community.32 Charles Duggan thought that these chapters were copied as an extract from the Cartulary of Fountains,33 but none of them are included in the volumes of the Fountains cartulary, and some among them do not deal with Fountains at all but with general problems of the Cistercians. These 25 texts in part II can mostly be classified as papal decretals with some local connection and importance for Fountains. They were not taken over from an already existing decretal collection, but probably collected from individual items available at Fountains and compiled as the first section of part II shortly after 1182, beginning with Innocent II’s privilege for Fountains and ending with Lucius III’s letter of friendship to the Cistercians.
All parts of the Fountains Collection therefore can be classified as decretal collections. At least three efforts were made in Fountains after 1180 to obtain knowledge about the “ius novum” formed by the decretals.
Canon law of the twelfth century was a law of remedies for the practitioner. We saw the abbot of Fountains acting as judge delegate. It is not surprising then that we have a considerable number of decretals dealing with procedural law in our collection. Nearly one-third of the decretals in our collection deal with questions of procedure law. The relatively new system of delegate judges and the freedom of appeal to the pope gave rise to many difficult questions not covered by the texts of the Decretum Gratiani. Papal legislation had never defined explicitly the jurisdiction of the delegate judges.
The Fountains Collection contains the following directives governing the courts of judges delegate. The pope sometimes appointed a second group of delegate judges for a lawsuit already commissioned to other judges delegate.34 The mandate of the judges delegate was generally supposed to be extended up to the execution of the sentence.35 The mandate to the delegate judges was supposed to be a personal one, but the successor of an abbot also succeeded in the former’s position as judge delegate.36 A delegate judge could subdelegate his commission with the possibility of appeal from his subdelegate to himself or to the pope.37 In one of the Fountains decretals we read the sentence: “Nec canones nec consuetudo Romanae ecclesiae habet, ut quis delegatos iudices a Romana ecclesia recusare valeat, nisi remedium appellationis ei fuerit reservatum.”38 We see that the pope could avoid any recusation of judges delegate by adding the “appellatione remota” clause to his commission.39 The delegate could force the parties of the lawsuit to come to the sessions,40 and the delegate judge usually had full power to execute his sentence.41
On the other hand, the freedom of appeal to the pope both controlled and restricted the jurisdiction of the delegate and served as the cornerstone of the church’s constitutional law.42 This theory found ample expression in the texts of the collection. The very first decretal proclaimed the principle of freedom to appeal even in cases where appeal had been generally excluded by the “appellatione remota” clause,43 which was explained in another decretal by the principle that appeals should be always accepted in cases of manifest iniquity of a judicial decision.44 This fundamental right of appeal to the pope could not be excluded even by a renunciation confirmed with an oath.45 The papal decretal law, however, also tried to avoid a delay or even a frustration of sanctions from deliberately paralyzing the course of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. For enormous crimes the penalty of excommunication might have been put into effect already by the time of the appeal.46 Finally, appeal was granted at every stage of the lawsuit prior to any sentence of the inferior judge.47
Many decretals also deal with other questions of procedural law, e.g. with proof by records or by witnesses.48 A number of texts in our collection confirm the impact of twelfth-century decretal law on the development of the law of proofs.
There are three other fields of canon law which are covered by a great number of decretals: property law of the church, marriage law, and monastic law. The preservation of church property was crucially important for the recently founded Cistercian monasteries which developed the new system of “granges” for the administration of their real estate.49 The abbot had some freedom in making donations from the property of the monastery according to custom,50 but the chapter of the convent had to give its assent if an abbot gave away a grange from the real estate of the monastery.51 The collection also has numerous letters dealing with the controversial question of the extension of monastic tithes. Could the monks keep tithes only from newly cultivated land, the noval tithes, or also from old fields now acquired by Cistercian monasteries? Adrian IV had restricted monastic freedom of tithes to newly cultivated land.52 Alexander III changed Adrian’s policy; he sent many letters concerning tithes to Cistercian monasteries.53 Some of them are preserved by the Fountains Collection and grant specific privileges to Fountains to keep all tithes due “de laboribus suis” and “de nutrimentis animalium.”54 The monks of Fountains Abbey were freed from paying tithes of the produce they raised by their own hand or from the food of their animals. The privilege “de laboribus” also would mean that serfs and mercenaries working for the monastery could not be compelled to pay tithes to their parish priests instead of to the monastery.55
A very important financial question was the distribution of income between the monastery and the vicars appointed for ministry in the abbey’s churches. The pope directed the monks to provide for the sustenance of their vicars,56 and a certain share had to be reserved for the priests in pastoral service.57 Papal decretal law tried to balance the privilege of a dynamic monastic community with the needs of the parish priests.
Nearly a fifth of the decretals compiled in Fountains Abbey are concerned with marriage law. This field of canon law adopted many new rules in the twelfth century developed by the papal decretals.58 Alexander III’s legislative creativity, for example, is most obvious in procedural law and in marriage law. A monastic collection had to take into account the papal law on the relationship between solemn vows to enter into a monastery and an already existing marriage of the same person. These problems are covered by seven chapters in our collection.59 We also find some decretals dealing with other actual and controversial problems in the canon law of marriage at the end of Alexander’s pontificate. One of them was adultery and the possibility for adulterers to enter into a legitimate marriage after their crime.60 Another problem was the distinction between betrothal and marriage, first distinguished and assigned with different consequences in Alexander’s decretals.61 Some decretals deal with the specific rules for procedure in marriage cases, e.g. the requirements for witnesses in questions of consanguinity.62 There are also decretals ordering that the requirement of cohabitation for a married couple be enforced.63 A forged decretal taken over by the Fountains Collection upheld the Gratianic copula-theory for the beginning of a marriage.64 The activity of the abbot of Fountains as a judge delegate in difficult marriage cases can explain the reception of so many marriage decretals in this collection. Our collection even includes a forgery prohibiting marriages under condition, a problem for canon law discovered very soon after the redaction of the Decretum Gratiani.65
The Fountains Collection contains many texts with rules and privileges for monks and monasteries. Apart from the questions concerning monastic tithes there are chapters dealing with other rules for monasteries. Alexander III ordered a special exemption of the Cistercians from episcopal jurisdiction in a decretal sent to Archbishop William of Sens. This decretal was preserved only in the Fountains Collection and in two Portuguese manuscripts from a Cistercian monastery in Portugal.66 According to another decretal the bishop should not prevent free elections of abbots by the monks.67 The monasteries were asked to admit as monks crusaders who had been victims of a robbery and could not get to Jerusalem.68 The right of the abbot of Fountains to excommunicate monks in a monastery subordinate to Fountains is firmly established by three papal decretals.69 To take money from somebody who wants to enter a monastery is strictly forbidden and defined as simony.70 Monks are not allowed to study law or medicine—the so-called “scientiae lucrativae.”71
It is not possible to enumerate all areas of canon law covered by the decretals of the Fountains Collection, but I want to mention a few more. There are texts on celibacy72 and on advowson.73 The collection has a strong tendency to oppose the heredity of churches which could result from admitting sons of priests as successors to their fathers. Five decretals in our collection condemned this abuse.74
Summarizing the contents of the Fountains Collection one could say that it certainly is not a collection with a narrow scope on monastic law. It reflects the legal problems of an abbey with a rich domain of subordinate churches and with an abbot interested in all difficult questions of canon law and obviously often commissioned to act as papal judge delegate. Fountains Abbey had many important papal letters on legal questions available around 1180.
The Fountains Collection was an early English decretal collection, but it was not the first one. Probably the oldest preserved English collection was a collection of decretals compiled in Worcester around 1173/74 known as the Wigorniensis altera.75 Half of the decretals in this collection—six out of ten—were sent to Bishop Roger of Worcester, who was one of the two great lights of the English church according to a characterization by Pope Alexander III.76 Two decretals to Roger of Worcester also form the first four chapters in the Fountains Collection,77 and all of the decretals of the small Worcester collection can be found in the first and the third part of the Fountains Collection.78 In one decretal to the bishop of Norwich the text is longer in the Fontanensis than in the Wigorniensis altera.79 Charles Duggan indicated in his groundbreaking book on the decretal collections that there exists a close relationship between the Wigorniensis altera and the Collectio Belverensis, a decretal collection located in the Benedictine convent of Belvoir, compiled around 1175 and probably having some connection to the career of bishop Gilbert Foliot of London.80 Wigorniensis altera and Belverensis must have had a common source, a now lost archetype of the early English decretal collections. This archetype known in the dioceses of Worcester and London also might have reached the province of York and could have been one of the sources of the Collectio Fontanensis. From the first nine chapters of our collection, six are post-Gratian decretals and can be traced back to the Wigorniensis altera,81 the other three chapters are preGratianic texts certainly taken by the compiler in Fountains from a Gratian manuscript with appendices like those in some Gratian manuscripts of the twelfth century.82 A collection like Wigorniensis altera might have been the nucleus of the Fountains Collection.
There is also another decretal collection from northern England which could have supplied some texts to the collection of Fountains Abbey, a collection coming from Durham. Fountains Abbey had many contacts to the Bishop of Durham. In the second part of the Fountains Collection we find a letter by Bishop William of Durham from 1146, intervening in a conflict about tithes between the clerics of Ripon and Fountains Abbey.83 The bishop there acts as executor for a papal mandate favorable to Fountains.
In 1180 Durham had Hugh de Puiset as bishop, one of the most vigorous holders of that see according to David Knowles’s judgment.84 Durham’s cathedral library owns a glossed Gratian manuscript preceded by a decretal collection of the late twelfth century called Collectio Dunelmensis prima.85 This collection has pre-Gratianic texts and many decretals from Alexander III, the latest probably issued in 1178.86 The canons of the Third Lateran Council and four decretals by Lucius III were later added to the collection.87 The manuscript as a whole is a combination of “ius antiquum” and “ius novum,” a remarkable northern English Corpus Iuris Canonici. Short rubrics in the margin of the decretals give some information on the legal contents of the new papal law. Comparing Dunelmensis and Fontanensis, one can see striking similarities in the decretal material present in both collections. Forty capitula, mostly decretals, in the Fountains Collection have a parallel in the Dunelmensis.88 Deviations in the text from other transmissions in decretal collections, e.g. in a well-known decretal by Alexander III to Roger of Worcester,89 give convincing proof of the close relationship between the two collections. A falsified conciliar canon from an African council, forged by Gratian’s disciple Omnebene, found its way likewise into Dunelmensis and Fontanensis, but was not included in other English collections.90 There are also many similarities in the rubrics between Dunelmensis and Fontanensis.
If there exists a relationship between these two collections, which one had priority or did they have a common source? The Dunelmensis is part of an elaborate textbook of canon law; the Fontanensis is a special collection for the interest and needs of a monastic community. I think that the Collectio Dunelmensis most probably was the source of the Collectio Fontanensis. Closer examination of the manuscripts themselves might give us further insights about the spread of canonistic knowledge in the province of York around 1180.
There is another group of collections that may be related to the Fountains Collection. The Fountains Collection contains a number of decretals with English, Italian and French addressees which form a special block of chapters.91 They are not included in most English collections, but can be found in a group of the decretal collections with Italian provenance, Holtzmann’s terminology for an Italian group of decretal collections. In this group of collections we find a sequence of chapters almost identical with the sequence in our collection. This Italian collection is called Collectio Cusana, because of the present location of the manuscript in Cues/Mosel.92 Holtzmann suggested in his analysis of the Fountains Collection that French Cistercians probably brought an Italian decretal collection to Fountains.93
Finally we have a sequence of decretals in the first part of the Fontanensis which all have Bartholomew of Exeter as their addressee.94 Six of these decretals are found in a decretal collection preserved in a Portuguese manuscript coming from the Cistercian abbey of Alcobaça.95 The Alcobaça codex also contains a further 14 decretals addressed to the bishop of Exeter.96 By this parallel reception of Exeter material one can presume that there might have existed a special collection of papal decretal letters received by Bartholomew that was brought to Cistercian abbeys in different countries of Europe.
We can conclude that the compilers of decretals in Fountains Abbey must have had at least four already existing decretal collections at their disposal, three of them coming from Worcester, Durham, and Exeter.
Some decretals in the Collectio Fontanensis may have reached the monastery directly from the recipient of the papal letter without any intermediary collection. We find a letter to the bishop of Durham in the Fontanensis,97 not included in other early English collections, not even in the Dunelmensis. There are also two decretals to the archbishop of York98 and another three to the bishop of Winchester,99 both of which are nearby in the sequence of texts. In these cases the decretals may have been transmitted directly to the abbey from the recipients. The conciliar decrees of the Westminster Council of 1175 also might have reached Fountains directly from that assembly.100 The decrees of the 1163 Council of Tours, on the other hand, most probably became known to Fountains by way of the Collectio Dunelmensis.101 We can see then that the Collectio Fontanensis is an elaborate composition from many different sources.
Fountains Abbey, founded in 1132 by the initiative of the former Benedictine Richard of York who had come to Fountains as an “abbot without monks,”102 held a distinguished position among the Cistercian foundations in England from its very beginning. Archbishop Thurstan of York had supported the foundation and Bernard of Clairvaux recommended it in a well-known letter to King David of Scotland.103 Its first abbot Richard acted already in 1138 as an assistant to the papal legate Alberic and died in Rome in 1139.104 Its third abbot Henry Murdac, friend of Pope Eugenius III, ascended to the archepiscopal see of York in 1147 by the favor of the pope.105 We do not know as much about Robert, the seventh abbot from 1170 to 1180, who had previously been abbot of Pipewell,106 or about Richard, the eighth abbot from 1180 to 1190, formerly abbot of Newminster.107 The economic importance of Fountains Abbey in the twelfth century can be seen by the attack of King John upon its wealth at the beginning of the thirteenth century.108 The importance of Fountains Abbey in canon law history for the “ius novum” also can justify Dom David Knowles’ judgment that it had “a unique position among the Cistercian houses of England.”109 This magnificent Cistercian monastery played a most important role in the spread of classical canon law in England during the twelfth century.
1 Cf. Philipp Jaffé (ed.), Regesta Pontificum Romanorum (2 vols, Lipsiae, 1888), vol. 2, pp. 307–315.
2 For the peace treaty cf. now Rodney M. Thomson, “An English Eyewitness of the Peace of Venice,” Speculum, 50 (1975): pp. 21–32; Wolfgang Georgi, Friedrich Barbarossa und die auswärtigen Mächte (Frank furt/Main, 1990), p. 312 with reference to older literature.
3 JL 12891: “Exigent gratissimae,” Migne (ed.), PL, vol. 200, col. 1130.
4 JL 12910: “Immensae laudes,” Migne (ed.), PL, vol. 200, col. 1140.
5 JL 12871: “Ea, quae compositione,” David Wilkins (ed.), Concilia Magna Britanniae et Hiberniae I (London, 1737), p. 437. JL 12901: “Significaverunt nobis,” Migne (ed.), PL, vol. 200, col. 1136.
6 Cf. David Knowles, The Episcopal Colleagues of Archbishop Thomas Becket (Cambridge, 1951), p. 66.
7 JL 13937 = WH 973. The decretal was critically edited with an English translation from the early decretal collections by Walther Holtzmann and Eric Waldram Kemp, Papal Decretals Relating to the Diocese of Lincoln in the Twelfth Century (Hereford, 1954), p. 20, no. VIII. For this decretal cf. also Bennett D. Hill, English Cistercian Monasteries and Their Patrons in the Twelfth Century (Urbana, IL, 1968), p. 142.
8 Collectio Cantabrigensis c.76—cf. Emil Friedberg, Die Canones-Sammlungen zwischen Gratian und Bernhard von Pavia (Leipzig, 1897; ND Graz, 1958), p. 18.
9 1 Comp. 4.7.2 = X 4.7.2.
10 On Alexander’s policy in marriage questions cf. mainly Charles Donahue, “The Dating of Alexander the Third‘s Marriage Decretals: Dauvillier Revisited after Fifty Years,” ZRG Kan. Abt., 68 (1982): pp. 70–124.
11 Cf. ed. Holtzmann and Kemp, Papal Decretals, p. 20: “Significavit nobis O. Andegavensis parrochianus Eboracen sis ecclesie per W. fratrem suum, quod W. de Romare, qui est ex hac luce subtractus, eum capiens tamdiu in vinculis ferreis et carcere tenuit, donec ipsum iurare coegit, quod Ha. mulierem acciperet in uxorem.”
12 Holtzmann and Kemp, Papal Decretals, l.c.: “Cum autem vincula et carcerem evasisset, aliam in uxorem accepit, de qua filios procreavit. Postea vero idem O. a praefata Ha. coram venerabili fratre nostro Eboracensi archiepiscopo, apostolice sedis legato, tractus in causam ab eo coactus est iuramento firmare, quod ad illam, quam sponte in uxorem acceperat, non accederet, donec his esset iudicio ecclesiastico terminata.”
13 Holtzmann and Kemp, Papal Decretals, l.c.: “Ceterum quia, priusquam de causa cognosceretur legitime, prenominata Ha. diem clausit extremum, predictus O. ad eam, de qua filios habuit, reverti non audet.”
14 Holtzmann and Kemp, Papal Decretals, l.c.: “Inde est, quod discretioni vestre (sc. Abbati de Fontibus et magistro Vacario) per apostolica scripta precipiendo mandamus, quatenus rei veritate inquisita diligenter et cognita, si vobis constiterit quod eidem O. tanta vis illata fuerit, ut predictam Ha. iuraret in uxorem accipere, et quod sponte in eam non consenserit neque post prestitum iuramentum ipsam carnaliter cognoverit, propter hoc non dimittatis, quin ei ad illam, quam postea in uxorem accepit, revertendi appellatione remota liberam tribuatis facultatem. Verum si prenominatus O. in prefatam Ha. sponte consensit et post prestitum iuramentum, quod ipsam in uxorem duceret, carnaliter eam cognovit, sibi ne ad secundam revertatur sub interminatione anathematis inhibeatis, dantes ei licentiam ducendi aliam, si voluerit, in uxorem.”
15 Concerning the canonical consequences of adultery for subsequent marriages in the contemporary discussion of the canonists see James A. Brundage, Law, Sex and Christian Society in Medieval Europe (Chicago, IL, 1987), p. 307, especially n. 236.
16 Bernardi Papiensis, Summa decretalium, ed. Ernst Adolph Theodor Laspeyres (Regensburg, 1860; ND Graz, 1956), p. 151. For Bernard’s own view see A. Esmein and R. Génestal, Le mariage en droit canonique (2 vols, Paris, 1929), vol. 1, p. 433 with n. 3. Gregory IX gave a legislative solution in a decretal obviously addressed to Raymund of Peñafort (Fratri R.) in X 4.7.8 (Po.9665).
17 MS Oxford Laud Misc. 527. See H.O. Coxe, Catalogi codicum mss. bibl. Bodleianae 2 (Oxford, 1858), pp. 381–385.
18 For this collection see now Frank Theisen, “Die Dekretalensammlung des Rainerius von Pomposa und ihre Hintergründe,” in Richard H. Helmholz, Paul Mikat, Jörg Müller, and Michael Stolleis (eds), Grundlagen des Rechts: Festschrift für Peter Landau zum 65. Geburtstag, Rechtswiss. Veröff. Görres–Gesellschaft, 91 (Paderborn, 2000), pp. 549–577. The edition of the Incipits in this article has some mistakes in reading.
19 Cf. Walther Holtzmann, Papsturkunden in England, 3 (Göttingen, 1952), p. 9.
20 Walther Holtzmann and C.R. and Mary Cheney, Studies in the Collections of Twelfth-Century Decretals, MIC, Ser. B, 3 (Città del Vaticano, 1979), pp. 100–115.
21 Charles Duggan, Twelfth Century Decretal Collections and Their Importance in English History, University of London Historical Studies, XII (London, 1963), p. 80. See also my review of Duggan‘s book in ZKG, 76 (1965): pp. 362–375, here p. 366.
22 Fols 24r–45v, see Holtzmann and Cheney, Studies in the Collections, p. 100.
23 Fontanensis II. 25: “Quamdiu in expectatione.” The letter was edited by Wilhelm Wiederhold, Papsturkunden in Frankreich, Nachrichten von der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen (7 vols in 3, Berlin, 1906), vol. 1, p. 76 (n. 52).
24 Innocent II: Font.II.1: “Que pro religiosorum,” in Walther Holtzmann, Papsturkunden 3, p. 163, n. 19, (no. 40). Eugenius III: Font.II.3: “Pro his que,” in Holtzmann and Kemp, Papal Decretals, l.c., p. 180 (no. 54). Adrian IV: Font.II.38: “Commisse nobis” (JL 11660 = WH 134)— a decretal wrongly attributed to Alexander III in some collections. WH with number indicates Walther Holtzmann’s unpublished decretal register.
25 Conc. Remense c.5 (Font.II.30); Conc Turonense c.2 (Font.III.37), c.3 (Font.III.25), c.4 (Font.III.19), c.5 (Font.III.20), c.6 (Font.II.39 and III.9), c.7 (Font.III.22), c.8 (Font. III.23); Conc. Westmonasteriense c.3 (Font.II.48), c.6 (Font.II.50), c.7 (Font.II.33), c.8 (Font. II.49), c.9–c.10 (Font.III.28), c.11 (Font.III.29).
26 Font.II.37 (JE 1207). The letter is found also in the Collectio Dunelmensis I (1 Dun.22)—cf. Holtzmann and Cheney, Studies in the Collections, p. 82. Later also in 1, Comp.2.15.1 = X 2.22.1.
27 Cf. Holtzmann and Cheney, Studies in the Collections, p. 101.
28 Cf. ibid., p. 100.
29 c.16 (JL 13846 = WH 289) to Rievaulx (= X 1.3.6); c.17 (WH 1024) to William of Sens. See Stanley Chodorow and Charles Duggan (eds), Decretales imeditae saeculi XII, MIC, Ser. B, 4 (Città del Vaticano, 1982), p. 10.
30 Font.II.1, in Walther Holtzmann, Papsturkunden 3, p. 163 (no. 40).
31 For tithes see Font.II.3, in Holtzmann, Papsturkunden 3, p. 180 (no. 54); Font.II.5, in Holtzmann, l.c., p. 293. (no. 151); Font.II.6, in Holtzmann, l.c., p. 399 (no. 270); Font.II.7, in Holtzmann, l.c., p. 298 (no. 156); Font.II.9, in Holtzmann, l.c., p. 375 (no. 244); Font. II.10, in Holtzmann, l.c., p. 385 (no. 251); Font.II.11, in Holtzmann, l.c., p. 400 (no. 271). For granges see Font.II.13, in Holtzmann, l.c., p. 334 (no. 198); Font.II.15, in Holtzmann, l.c., p. 341 (no. 208). For the system of granges see Joan Wardrop, Fountains Abbey and Its Benefactors, 1132–1300, Cistercian Studies Series, 91 (Kalamazoo, MI, 1987), passim, with a list of Fountains granges on p. 280.
32 Font.II.25, in Wiederhold, Papsturkunden in Frankreich, p. 76 (no. 52); reprinted in: Acta Romanorum Pontificum, 7 (Città del Vaticano, 1985).
33 Duggan, Twelfth Century Decretal Collections, p. 80 with n. 1.
34 Font.I.17 = Font.II 27 (JL 14069 = WH 445) = X 2.14.2; Font.I.28 (JL 14035 = WH 899) = Brugensis 44.5—in Friedberg, Die Canonessammlungen zwischen Gratian und Bernhard von Pavia (Leipzig, 1897; ND Graz, 1958), p. 161. An interesting example for a replacement of a first commission of judges is given in Alexander’s decretal JL 13891 (WH 250 = 2 Comp.2.18.2). It deals with a case in Bridlington between a canon Walter and the prior. The election of the prior was controversial and he was accused of dissipating church property. Alexander first delegated the case to the bishop of Durham and the abbot of Fountains; he later re-delegated it to the archbishop of York, the bishop of Exeter and the abbot of Ford or of Rufford. See Adrian Morey, Bartholomew of Exeter: Bishop and Canonist (Cambridge, 1937), p. 55 and especially Walter Ullmann, “A Forgotten Dispute at Bridlington Priory in Its Canonistic Setting,” Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 37 (1951): pp. 456–473—also in Walter Ullmann, The Church and the Law in the Earlier Middle Ages (London, 1975), no. XVI—with an edition of the decretal pp. 469–473.
35 Font.I.20 = Font.III.5 (JL 14219 + 13915 + 13921 = WH 557)—printed in: X 1.29.9 + 2.13.5–6 + 1 Comp.1.23.8 + X 1.14.5 + 3.48.4 + 4.21.4 + 2.30.1.
36 Font.I.34 (JL 14175 = JL 14009 = WH 540) = Collectio Appendix 46.4 = X 1.29.14 (abbreviated).
37 Font.II.53 (JL 13991 = WH 320) = 1 Comp.1.21.1; Font. III.2 (JL 14156 + JL 14152 + JL 14154 = WH 761)—printed in: X 1.29.6 + 1 Comp.2.13.13 + 2.20.34 + X 1.3.3 + 1 Comp. 2.13.13 (last sentence also: 1 Comp.2.14.1) + 1.21.8+X 3.38.8 + X 3.38.8 + 1.28.3. For subdelegation cf. Jane Sayers, Papal Judges Delegate in the Province of Canterbury (Oxford, 1971), pp. 135–143.
38 Font.III.3 (JL 13878 = WH 590) = X 1.3.4 + 1.29.2. The sentence “Nec canones … reservatum” is only found in some early decretal collections, not in the Liber Extra. It is edited in the analysis of Collectio Claustroneoburgensis— see Ferdinand Schönsteiner, Die Collectio Claustroneoburgensis, Jahrbuch des Stiftes Klosterneuburg, 2 (1909), p. 133 (Claustroneoburgensis c.334.II). It may have been an early gloss.
39 For “appellatione remota” see A. Padoa Schioppa, “La delega ‘appellatione remota’ nelle decretali di Alessandro III,” in André Gouron (ed.), Renaissance du pouvoir législatif et genèse de l’état (Montpellier, 1988), pp. 179–187. For recusatio iudicis see Linda Fowler, “Recusatio iudicis in civilian and canonist thought,” Post Scripta, Studia Gratiana, 15 (Romae, 1972), pp. 717–785, especially p. 741 with n. 93. The Fontanensis text “Nec canones … reservatum” is corresponding to Alexander’s III decretal 1 Comp.2.20.18 (JL 14071 = WH 194), defining recusation as a kind of appeal. Later Lucius III contradicted Alexander III and allowed refusal of judges also in cases of “appellatione remota”—1 Comp.2.20.45 = X 2.28.36 (JL 14966 = WH 61), see Fowler, l.c, p. 743. For WH 194 see also Walther Holtzmann, Kanonistische Ergän zungen zur Italia Pontificia (Tübingen, 1959), p. 82, no. 114 (= Q.F.38,p.100). For WH 61 see also Holtzmann and Kemp, Papal Decretals, p. 52 (no. XXI).
40 Font.III.7 (JL 12293 = WH 944) = X 1.3.1 + 2.28.12 +1.29.5 +2.24.8.
41 Font.III.2—see n. 37.
42 For the origins of this important right, see my article, “Die kirchliche Justizgewährung im Zeitalter der Reform in den Rechtssammlungen,” in La Giustizia nell’alto medioevo (secoli IX–XI), Settimane di studio del Centro Italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo XLIV (2 vols, Spoleto, 1997), vol. 1, pp. 427–450.
43 Font.I.1 = Font.III.12–13 (JL 13162 = WH 649) = X 2.28.10. See also Mary Cheney, “JL 13162 ‘Meminimus nos ex’: One letter or two?,” BMCL, N.S. 4 (1974): pp. 66–70. Font.I.1 begins with “Super eo.” For “appellatione remota” also Font.III.16 (Holtzmann and Cheney [eds], Studies, p. 114), an isolated brocardum within the decretal material.
44 Font.III.32 (JL 13878 = WH 590) = X 2.27.9 + 3.38.10.
45 Font.I.30 (JL 14143 = WH 97) = X 2.13.4.
46 Font.I.48 = Font.III.1b (JL 14152 = WH 1004) = X 2.28.22; Font.II.51 (JL 14312 = WH 755) = X 2.28.25 (1 Comp. 2.20.41).
47 Font.III.7, see n. 40; Font.III.24 (JL 12020 = WH 299) = X 2.28.5–6.
48 Proof by records: Font.II.37 (JE 1207) = X 2.22.1; proof by witnesses: Font.I.31 = Font. II.34 (JL 13824 = WH 888)—ed. by Schönsteiner (n. 38) from Claustroneoburgensis c.286 (p. 118); Font.II.32 (JL 9657 = WH 841) = X 2.20.5; Font. III.34 (JL 14091 = WH 620) = X 2.20.14 + 2.1.4 vor 2. For proof by records and by witnesses in the decretals see Harald Müller, Päpstliche Delegationsgerichtsbarkeit in der Normandie, Teil 1, Studien und Dokumente zur Gallia Pontificia, 4.1 (Bonn, 1997), pp. 88–93.
49 For the grange system see Colin Platt, The Monastic Grange in Medieval England: A Reassessment (London, 1969).
50 Font.I.2 = Font.III.13 (JL 13162 = WH 649) = 1 Comp. 4.20.6 + X 3.24.3 + 4.5.4 +2.22.2.
51 Font.II.13–15 (WH 158 + 773 + 348)—in Holtzmann (ed.), Papsturkunden 3, p. 334. (no. 198), p. 330. (no. 194), p. 341. (no. 208).
52 JL 9972—see Giles Constable, Monastic Tithes from Their Origins to the Twelfth Century (Cambridge, 1964), pp. 278–288 for Adrian’s policy.
53 See Constable, Monastic Tithes, pp. 294–304.
54 Font.II.5 (WH 675), in Holtzmann, Papsturkunden 3, p. 293. (no. 151). Font.II.7 (WH 130), in Holtzmann, l.c., p. 298. (no. 156); Font.II.10 (WH 765), in Holtzmann, l.c., p. 385 (no. 251).
55 Font.II.11 (WH 395), in Holtzmann (ed.), Papsturkunden 3, p. 400 (no. 271).
56 Font.I.3—partially repeated in Font.III.6 and III.11 (JL 13162 = WH 649) = X 4.6.3 + 3.5.12 + 3.39.8 +2.28.9. For these lawsuits see also H. Müller, Päpstliche Delegationsgerichtsbarkeit, pp. 161–165.
57 Font.I.5 (JL 4269 = WH 864) = X 3.28.2.
58 See mainly Donahue, “The Dating,” n. 10 above.
59 Font.I.3 = Font.III.6 (see n. 56 above); Font.I.13 (JL 13972 = WH 84) = X 3.32.8; Font.I.19 = Font.II.29 (JL 13787 = WH 476) = X 3.32.7; Font.III.30 = Font.I.10d (JL 13946 = WH 1017) = X 3.32.1.
60 Font.I.2 = Font.III.13, see n. 50 above; Font.I.39 (JL 13900 = WH 474) ed. by Schönsteiner (n. 38 above) from Claustroneoburgensis c.67 (p. 41.); Font.I.43 = Font.III.18 (JL 13903 = WH 1013) = X 4.1.2; Font.I.45 (JL 12636 = WH 989) = X 4.7.1; Font.I.51 (JL 13163 = WH 48) = 1 Comp. 4.13.2; Font.II.45 (JL 13773 = WH 838) = X 4.7.3.
61 Font.I.16 (JL 13947 = WH 631) = X 4.2.4; Font.II.46 (JL 13767 = WH 4) = X 4.2.7; Font.II.47 (JL 13901 = WH 723), ed. Schönsteiner (n. 38 above) from Claustroneoburgensis c.30 (p. 31); Font.III.2 part.l (JL 14136 = WH 192) = 1 Comp. 4.1.3.
62 Font.I.44 (JL 14214 = WH 701) = 1 Comp.4.19.3; Font.II.32 (see n. 48 above).
63 Font.I.32 (JL 13823 = WH 868) = 1 Comp. 2.20.21; Font.I.51 (JL 13163 = WH 48) = 1 Comp. 4.13.2.
64 Font.I.46 (JL 3773 = WH 610) = C.27 q.2 c.18. See Walther Holtzmann, Kanonistische Ergänzungen zur Italia Pontificia (Tübingen, 1959), p. 100 (no. 145) = Q.F.38 (1958) p. 118, and especially Rudolf Weigand, Fälschungen als Paleae im Dekret Gratians, Fälschungen im Mittelalter. Teil II: Gefälschte Rechtstexte. Der bestrafte Fälscher, MGH-Schriften, 33, II (Hannover, 1988), pp. 301–318, here p. 313.
65 Font.II.31 (= C.27 q.2 c.8). For this forgery see Weigand, Fälschungen p. 312 and p. 316, also Rudolf Weigand, Die bedingte Eheschließung im kanonischen Recht, Münchener theologische Studien, III, Kan. Abt., 16 (München, 1963), pp. 103–108, p. 130 and p. 148. The forgery was already known to Rufinus—cf. Summa Rufini, ed. H. Singer (Paderborn, 1902; ND Aalen, 1963), p. 458. The forgery is one of the earliest sources for the practice of conditional marriages.
66 Font.II.17 (WH 1024), see n. 29 above and the edition by Chodorow and Duggan.
67 Font.II.18 (JL 10635), Migne (ed.), PL, vol. 200, col. 92; a letter from Alexander III, November 20, 1160 to the abbot of Rievaulx.
68 Font.II.19 (WH 1070), in Holtzmann, Papsturkunden 3, p. 302 (no. 162).
69 Font.II.21 (WH 81), in Holtzmann, Papsturkunden 3, p. 299 (no. 157); Font.II.22 (WH 677), in Holtzmann, l.c., p. 299. (no. 158); Font.II.23 (WH 865), in Holtzmann, l.c., p. 300. (no. 160).
70 Font.II.39 = Conc.Turon.1163, c.6 = X 5.4.3; Font.II.40: a short chapter on Simony, attributed to Gregorius, edited by Holtzmann and Cheney in Studies in the Collections, p. 110; Font.II.49 = Conc. Westmonasteriense 1175, c.8, edited by Emil Seckel, “Canonistische Quellenstudien I,” Deutsche Zeitschrift für Kirchenrecht, 9 (1899): pp. 159–189, here p. 169.
71 Font.III.23 = Conc. Turon. c.8 = X 3.50.3. For a survey of conciliar and papal legislation in this field see Stephan Kuttner, “Dat Galienus opes et sanctio Justiniana,” Linguistic and Literary Studies in Honour of Helmut A. Hatzfeld (Washington, DC, 1964), pp. 237–246, also in Stephan Kuttner, The History of Ideas and Doctrines of Canon Law in the Middle Ages (London, 1992), no. X.
72 Font.I.10 (JL 13946 = WH 1017) = X 3.3.2; Font.I.42 = Font.III.17 (JL 13904 = WH 962) = 1 Comp. 4.6.3; Font.III.1 (WH 1004) ed. Friedberg, Canonessammlungen from 1 Par.c.52 (p.55).
73 Font.I.33 (JL 13798 = WH 1061) = X 3.38.16; Font.I.35 (WH 748), Claustroneoburgensis c.150 (Schönsteiner [ed.], Die Collectio Claustroneoburgensis, p. 70).
74 Font.I.4 (WH 863), ed. Heinrich Singer, Neue Beiträge über die Dekretalensammlungen vor und nach Bernhard von Pavia, SSB Ak. Wien, Phil.-hist.Kl.171/1 (Wien, 1913), p. 296s.: Font.I.8 (JL 12254 = WH 589) = 1 Comp. 3.3.4; Font.I.15 (JL 13814 = WH 405) = 1 Comp. 2.20.33; Font.I.38 (JL 13913 = WH 1000), Claustroneoburgensis c.122 (Schönsteiner [ed.], Die Collectio Claustroneoburgensis, p. 61); Font.I.52 (JL 13982 = WH 412) = X 1.17.2.
75 For the Wigorniensis altera see Duggan, Twelfth Century Decretal Collections, p. 69 with an analysis on pp. 152–154.
76 So according to Gerald of Wales, see Giraldi Cambrensis Opera VII, Rerum Britannicarum Medii Aevi Scriptores, 21 (London, 1877) p. 43, cited by Mary Cheney, Roger, Bishop of Worcester 1164–1179 (Oxford, 1980), p. 2.
77 2 Wig.4 = Font.I.1(I–II) + I.3(d) + I.4 + I.3(bc); 2 Wig.5 = Font.I.3(a) + I.2(ab) + I.2(c–e), see Duggan, Twelfth Century Decretal Collections, p. 153 and Holtzmann and Cheney, Studies in the Collections of Twelfth Century Decretals, p. 103.
78 2 Wig.1 = Font.I.50 = III.15; 2 Wig.2–3 = Font.I.8. 2 Wig.6 = Font.I.51; 2 Wig.7 = Font.III.33 (not complete in 2 Wig.); 2 Wig.8 = Font.I.52; 2 Wig.9 = Font I.53; 2 Wig.10 = Font.I.9 = Font.III.14a; 2 Wig.11 = Font.III.24 (not complete in Font.); 2 Wig.12 = Font. III.7 (not complete in Font.). For 4–5 see n. 77. For 2 Wig. I follow the chapter numbers in Duggan’s book—Holtzmann has different numbers—cf. my article, “Rechtsfortbildung im Dekretalenrecht,” ZRG Kan. Abt., 117 (2000): pp. 86–131, at p. 99, n. 44.
79 2 Wig.7—cf. n. 78 above.
80 For Collectio Belverensis (Belvoir collection) see Duggan, Twelfth Century Decretal Collections, pp. 71–73 and pp. 155–162 (analysis with a comparative table). The collection was edited by J.A. Giles, Gilberti Londoniensis epistolae (2 vols, Londini, 1846), vol. 2.
81 Font.I.1–4 and 8–9, see n. 77 and n. 78 above.
82 Font.I.5 = JL 4269 (Leo IX. <Relatum est>); Font.I.6 = C.2 q.7 c.7 (Burch.16.7); Font.I.7 = JL 5153 + 5154 (Gregorius VII. Reg.VII.13–14). For the canonistic transmission of JL 4269 see Ludwig Schmugge, “Die Dekretale Papst Leos IX: Relatum est auribus nostris (JL 4269) in der kanonistischen Tradition (1052–1234),” ZRG Kan. Abt., 73 (1987): pp. 41–69.
83 Font.II.2 (WH 683), in Holtzmann and Cheney, Studies in the Collections of Twelfth-Century Decretals, p. 107; Knowles, Episcopal Colleagues, p. 15.
84 Knowles, Episcopal Colleagues, p. 15.
85 For 1 Dun. see the analysis by Holtzmann and Cheney, Studies in the Collections of Twelfth-Century Decretals, pp. 75–99 and Charles Duggan, “A Durham Canonical Manuscript of the Late Twelfth Century,” Studies in Church History, 2 (1965): pp. 179–185; also in: Duggan, Canon Law in Medieval England (London, 1982), no. VI.
86 The pre-Gratianic texts are mostly in Part I of the collection—see Holtzmann and Cheney, Studies in the Collections of Twelfth-Century Decretals, pp. 80–85. For the date of the collection see Duggan, “A Durham Canonical Manuscript,” p. 182.
87 Canons of the Third Lateran Council in c.36–c.59 of Part II—Holtzmann and Cheney, Studies in the Collections of Twelfth-Century Decretals, p. 90; decretals from Lucius III in Part III, c.68–c.71—Holtzmann and Cheney, Studies in the Collections of Twelfth-Century Decretals, p. 99.
88 1.)Font.I.22 = 1Dun.II.14; 2.)Font.I.23 = 1Dun.II.15; 3.)Font.I.24 = 1Dun.II.27; 4.) Font.I.25 = 1Dun.II.11; 5.)Font.I.26 = 1Dun.II.2; 6.)Font.I.27 = 1Dun.II.7; 7.)Font.I.28 = 1Dun.II.6; 8.)Font.I.29 = 1Dun.II.10; 9.)Font.I.30 = 1Dun.II.32; 10.)Font.I.31 = 1Dun.II.35; 11.)Font.I.32 = 1Dun.III.50; 12.)Font.I.33 = 1Dun.III.56; 13.)Font.I.34 = 1Dun.III.65; 14.) Font.I.37 = 1Dun.II.28; 15.)Font.I.38 = 1Dun.II.33; 16.)Font.I.43 = 1Dun.II.29; 17.)Font.I.45 = 1Dun.III.9; 18.)Font.I.46 = 1Dun.III.33; 19.)Font.I.47= 1Dun.III.42; 20.)Font.I.49 = 1Dun. III.52; 21.)Font.II.31 = 1Dun.I.31; 22.)Font.II.34 = 1Dun.II.35; 23.)Font.II.37 = 1Dun.I.22; 24.)Font.II.43 = 1Dun.II.4; 25.)Font.II.47 = 1Dun.III.58; 26.)Font.III.9 = 1Dun.III.64; 27.) Font.III.18 = 1Dun.II.29; 28.)Font.III.19 = 1Dun.III.5; 29.)Font.III.20 = 1Dun.III.1; 30.)Font. III.21 = 1Dun.III.2; 31.)Font.III.22 = 1Dun.III.3; 32.)Font.III.23 = 1Dun.III.4; 33.)Font.III.25 = 1Dun.III.8; 34.)Font.III.26 = 1Dun.I.14,I.35,III.13; 35.)Font.III.31 = 1Dun.II.3; 36.)Font. III.32 = 1Dun.II.30; 37.)Font.III.34 = 1Dun.II.1; 38.)Font.III.35 = 1Dun.III.45 and 51; 39.) Font.III.36 = 1Dun.III.42; 40.)Font.III.37 = 1Dun.III.7.
89 JL 12753 = WH 679, in Holtzmann and Kemp, Papal Decretals, p. 18 (no. VII).
90 Font.II.31, see n. 65 above.
91 Font.I.10–21—see the comparative table in Holtzmann and Cheney, Studies in the Collections of Twelfth-Century Decretals, p. 101.
92 For the Collectio Cusana see the analysis in Holtzmann and Cheney, Studies in the Collections of Twelfth-Century Decretals, pp. 66–74.
93 Cf. Holtzmann and Cheney, Studies in the Collections of Twelfth-Century Decretals, p. 102.
94 Font.I.36–44; cf. Holtzmann and Cheney, Studies in the Collections of Twelfth-Century Decretals, p. 106. Bartholomew is not mentioned as addressee for these decretals in the Fontanensis, but in the transmission of the same texts in other collections.
95 Font.I.39 = 1 Alc.74; Font.I.40 = 1 Alc.75; Font.I.41 = 1 Alc.73; Font.I.42 = 1 Alc.81; Font.I.43 = 1 Alc.82; Font.I.44 = 1 Alc.83. For the Collectio Alcobacensis prima (1 Alc.) see the analysis in Holtzmann and Cheney, Studies in the Collections of Twelfth-Century Decretals, pp. 8–25 and Charles Duggan, “English Decretals in Continental Primitive Collections with Special Reference to the Primitive Collection of Aleobaça,” Collectanea Stephan Kuttner IV, Studia Gratiana, 14 (Bologna, 1967), pp. 53–72; also in: C. Duggan, “Canon Law,” no. IX.
96 1 Alc.66; 1 Alc. 73–83; 1 Alc.85; 1 Alc.89. Among these letters 1 Alc.66 and 85 are also addressed to bishop Roger of Worcester, 1 Alc.78 also to the archbishop of Canterbury.
97 Font.I.35 (WH 748), Schönsteiner (ed.), Die Collectio Claustroneoburgensis, p. 70.
98 Font.III.3 (JL 13878 = WH 590) = X 1.3.4 + 1.29.2; Font.III.8 (JL 13893 = WH 329) = X 3.38.11.
99 Font.III.1 and I.48 (JL 14152 = WH 1004) = 1 Par.52 (Friedberg, Canonessammlungen, p. 55) + X 2.28.22; Font.III.2 a–k (JL 14156 + 14152 + 14154 = WH 761) = X 1.29.6 + 1 Comp.2.13.13 + 1 Comp.2.20.34 + X 1.3.3 + 1 Comp.2.14.1 + 1 Comp. 1.21.8 + X 3.38.8 + X 1.28.3; Font.III.2 l (JL 14136 = WH 192) = 1 Comp.4.1.3.
100 For the transmission of the Westminster canons in decretal collections see Holtzmann and Cheney, Studies in the Collections of Twelfth-Century Decretals, p. 337.
101 All conciliar canons of the Fontanensis are also found in the Collectio Dunelmensis— see Holtzmann and Cheney, Studies in the Collections of Twelfth-Century Decretals, p. 337. Font. II.39 is not Conc.Tur. c.7—so Holtzmann and Cheney, Studies in the Collections of Twelfth-Century Decretals, p. 110 and p. 337, but Conc.Tur. c.6.
102 So David Knowles, The Monastic Order in England (Cambridge, 1963), p. 236. For the foundation of Fountains Abbey see also Colin Platt, The Abbeys and Priories of Medieval England (New York, 1984), pp. 45–48.
103 Knowles, The Monastic Order in England, p. 237, n. 3. The letter was edited by Georg Hüffer, Der heilige Bernhard von Clairvaux (Münster, 1886), p. 233 (no. X).
104 Knowles, The Monastic Order in England, p. 237.
105 Ibid., p. 255.
106 Ibid., p. 356.
107 Ibid., p. 356.
108 Ibid., p. 358 and p. 368, n. 5 and Wardrop, Fountains Abbey and Its Benefactors, n. 31 above, p. 22. Fountains abbey is said to have paid 1,200 marks to the king.
109 A survey of the history and the architecture of Fountains Abbey in Lionel Butler and Chris Given-Wilson, Medieval Monasteries of Great Britain (London, 1979), pp. 237–242.