Untitled

Documents: 4. 1 271
(=O) is the earlier edition of Hostiensis’s Lectura. AsatDocument2. 1
(and 2. 2), the later edition’s readings are shown in the apparatus criticus,
though from a di·erent manuscript since the manuscript used for 2. 1
and 2. 2 does not cover this part of the Lectura.
For the later edition I have chosen MS London, BL Arundel 471 (fo.
95RA) (=A1). This is a parchment manuscript, 440 mm.ÿ280 mm.; the
last folio number is 308. There are initials and paragraph marks in red
and blue. It contains the commentary by Hostiensis on the last three
books of the Decretals of Gregory IX, and is a pecia copy: see below.
The script seems to be Italian: at least, it has the ‘u’-shaped superscript,
which is a fairly good indication of Italian origin when it replaces ‘r’ or
‘er’. Thus it may have been produced by the pecia system at Bologna,
though further research (e.g. into the number of peciae) would be needed
to establish this with certainty. It could be late thirteenth century. It is
thus a good manuscript of the later recension to compare with O, the
carrier of the early version.
A section of the passage edited below is also irreproachably edited
by Pennington in the article discussed above. He was illustrating the
di·erence between the two recensions. The passage he edited begins
‘Hac etiam ratione . . .’ and ends ‘. . . melius commutavit, infra de vot.
Scripture’ (see p. 83 of Pennington). I have marked the passage clearly
in my edition, and duplicated Pennington’s work in order to help the
reader by keeping the passage as a whole. I retain my own slightly different
editorial style and I have clearly marked the point where I continue
without Pennington’s guidance.
The small duplication of e·ort is useful for another reason than the
reader’s convenience. It suggests that the version in the 1581 edition
used by Pennington for Hostiensis’s ‘second edition’ is fairly close to
the manuscript I used, which is representative of a family almost certainly
widely available, because it is a pecia manuscript, di·used by the
university system of multiple copying. In A1 the pecia evidence is clear:
e.g. fo. 95VA, four lines up: ‘fi. xlvii.pe.’. To show how a pecia text compares
with the first recension, I have recorded all significant readings,
including errors: it is useful to be reminded how poor pecia texts can be.
Note, however, that though the scribe has a habit of writing ‘coniuc-’ for
‘coniunc-’, I have not recorded these cases.
O, fo. 151RB, right-hand gloss; A1, fo.95RA:
1. Hac etiam ratione considerata possent sponsi de presenti ante carnis
copulam auctoritate pape se adinvicem absolvere, sicut legitur in
sponsalibus ‘De Sponsalibus’ c. ii, quia contrarius actus congruus intervenire
potest. Argumentum infra, ‘De regulis iuris’, Omnis res: licet
sponsalibus ‘De Sponsalibus’ c. ii, quia] sponsalibus de futuro. Infra de spon-
[See p. 272 for n. 3 cont. and nn. 4 and 5.