København, Kongelike Bibliothek, Ny Kgl. Saml. 58 8°

Penitential and Frankish canons

Gregorii Decretalia, Libellus responsionum

Inquisitio Hieronymi de paenitentia

Leonis Gelasiique decretalia (excerpts)

Hibernensis excerpts and Isidorian Epistola ad Massonam

saec. VIII 1/2; written shortly after 731 in Gaul, in a hand whose writing clearly betrays Spanish influence (source: Kéry, Canonical Collections, p. 58)

Proofread status: 
This transcription has not been proofread yet.
Year transcribed: 
2011
Transcription information: 
Michael D. Elliot
MS capitalization and (in most cases) punctuation have been retained. As mentioned above, the section containing penitential matter (fols 1v-52r) is somewhat disorganized. After consultation with the CCL, it was decided that the best solution was to be ultra conservative in this instance, i.e. to avoid both introducing artificial text partitions and rearranging the order of texts (e.g. the Excarpsus) contained therein. This block of material has been therefore presented together, as one textual unit.
Codicological information: 
1) As noticed by Asbach, Das Poenitentiale, 385 n. 8, Copenhagen 58 is the earliest witness for all the texts that it contains (with the possible exception of the Epitome Hispana). 2) Excaprsus 7.9 is drawn from Auxerre (561x605), c. 1, which may go towards explaining why Auxerre (561x605) is found after the Excarpsus in both Copenhagen 58 and Bodley 572.
Catalogue description: 
E. Jørgensen, Catalogus codicum latinorum medii ævi Bibliothecæ regiæ Hafniensis (Copenhagen, 1926), 271-72.
Transcribed from: 
Images (digital or microfilm)
Quality of Images: 
Good
Transcriber information: 
Not a published editor of medieval text, but experienced in manuscript research.
Best description: 
E. Jørgensen, Catalogus codicum latinorum medii ævi Bibliothecæ regiæ Hafniensis (Copenhagen, 1926), 271-72; E. A. Lowe, Codices latini antiquiores: a palaeographical guide to Latin manuscripts prior to the ninth century, 11 vols, plus supplement (Oxford, 1934–1971; 2nd ed. of vol. 2 publ. 1972), X, no. 1568; Suppl. 62; F. B. Asbach, Das Poenitentiale Remense und der sogen. Excarpsus Cummeani: Überlieferung, Quellen und Entwicklung zweier kontinentaler Bußbücher aus der 1. Hälfte des 8. Jahrhunderts (D.Phil. dissertation, University of Regensburg, 1975), 23-4, 43-4 and 57-9; R. Meens, 'The oldest manuscript witness of the Collectio canonum Hibernensis', Peritia, 14 (2000), 1-19; R. Reynolds, 'The "Isidorian" Epistula ad Massonam on lapsed clerics: notes on its early manuscript and textual transmission', in Grundlagen des rechts. Feschrift für Peter Landau zum 65. Geburtsdag, eds R. H. Helmholz, P. Mikat, J. Müller and M. Stolleis, Rechts- und Staatswissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Görres-Gesellschaft, neue Folge 91 (Paderborn, 2000), 77-92, at 80-3.
Image available: 
Lowe, Codices latini antiquiores, X, no. 1568.
Description Updates: 
The MS is incomplete at beginning and end. There are quires marks at the bottom of the verso of every eight folios. The first is on f. 14v and reads 'q. IIII'. There is also a faint 'iii' at the bottom of fol. 6v, where the mark for the third quire should be. Thus the MS is now missing its first quire along with the first two folios of its second quire. Moreover, the text on the final folio (117v) ends incomplete (about 15 lines of text are missing, which accounts almost exactly for a single missing folio), indicating that at least one folio, if not an entire additional quire, is also missing from the end of the manuscript. The Excarpsus Cummeani is distributed in two series (ff. 1v-34r and 44v-5r2). As Asbach, Das Poenitentiale, p. 250 n. 108, doubtless rightly deduced, the second series of Excarpus chapters is to be explained as the result of a quire in Copenhagen's exemplar being displaced (i.e. moved to the middle of the MS from its original position nearer the beginning).
Scribal practices: 
1) There are few rubrics indicating major textual divisions and none (except in the Libellus responsionum) indicating chapter divisions or chapter numbers. No division is signalled between the end of the first series of Excarpsus chapters and the following chapter from Paris (614). Nor is there a division signalled between the end of Auxerre (561x605) and the beginning of the SEA/Hibernensis excerpts (ff. 42r-44r), nor between the end of these excerpts and the beginning of the short series of excerpts from the Paenitentiale Cummeani, nor between this series of excerpts and the beginning of the second series of Excarpsus chapters. The first of these divisions (Excarpsus > CPAR.614) occurs at a page (not a folio) change, but the other divisions occur on the same page. 2) There are two instances within the series of Excarpsus chapters (fols 8r and 29r) where a new folio begins with an erasure of substantial length. These erasures coincide with gaps in the series of Excarpsus chapters. 3) All scribes (see below) abbreviate 'quis' as 'q' with a suspension mark above. The abbreviation 'ann' with a suspension mark above, meaning either 'annos' or 'annis' and used frequently in clauses specifying lengths of penance, is difficult to resolve with certainty in penitential manuscripts, as texts and scribes often switched between using the ablative and accusative case in such expressions. In my transcription I have expanded this abbreviation to 'annos', unless there were clear reasons to do otherwise. 4) In all hands there is frequent disagreement between the number of the subject and of the verb (e.g. 'si clero sunt abiciatur'). 5) Peculiar orthographies include: --Hand B: 'sidonis' for 'synodis' (also in Hand D) --Hand C: 'deuere' (once) for 'debere; 'nun' (once) for 'non; --Hand D: 'deueant' (later corrected to 'debeant'); 'potauerunt' (once) for 'putauerunt'; 'scupe (once) for 'scope'; 'urigine' (once) probably for 'origine'; 'nepus' (once) for 'nepos'; 'scribtum' (often) for 'scriptum'; 'concidet' (always) for 'concedit'; 'antiquoribus' (always) for 'antiquioribus'; 'debit' (often) for 'debet'; 'illut' (twice) for 'illud'; '-gn-' rendered '-nn-' in 'repunnantem'; 'ebdomata' (often; other hands write 'ebdomada'); 'seo' (occasionally) for 'seu'; 'prouigilius' (always) for 'peruigilius'; 'sidonum' for 'synodum'; 6) In all hands, there is general case confusion for nouns following prepositions: 'a communionem', 'de opera', 'ad exitu', 'cum oblationem', 'post morte', 'extra communione', 'per dilectissimus filius meus', 'per consensu', 'per arte', 'per contentu', 'per nocte', 'per uitio aliquo', 'pro sanitatem', 'pro remedium', 'pro fluxum' (in none of these examples has 'per' or 'pro' been abbreviated by the scribe--on which see below) 7) That the abbreviation for 'pro' ('p' with the bottom of the bow extending through the descender, back, and down) is occasionally followed by a noun in the accusative has suggested to some scholars that in Copenhagen 58 this abbreviation sometimes represents 'per'. This is one of the presumed 'Visigothic symptoms' which led Lowe to place the manuscript's origin in 'Southern France ... doubtless in a centre under Visigothic influence'. But if the abbreviation in question does occasionally represent 'per' instead of 'pro', then this is probably only the case in the section copied by Hand D (the other three hands do not, with one exception, use this abbreviation). The evidence is not unambiguous, however. Throughout Hand D's section, the abbreviation is often clearly used to represent 'pro' and not 'per' (e.g. 'pro peccato', f. 100v line 16; 'prolis, f. 111r line 1; 'profecto', f. 111r line 9). The two instances of "Visigothic 'per'" adduced by Lowe ('pro/per confessionem' for 'professionem', f. 43v line 13; and 'pro/per furtem' for 'furtim', fol. 78r line 10) are in fact probably just instances of 'pro' being followed (incorrectly) by an accusative, as happens so often in this manuscript (on which see above). However, Lowe did not notice another example that might have helped his argument for Visigothic influence: on f. 110v, Hand C wrote 'turbatum se per aliquem' (where 'per' is abbreviated in the standard 'non-Visigothic' way); someone (the main scribe perhaps) then corrected the 'per' symbol to a 'pro' symbol. Because it is unthinkable that a scribe would correct from 'per aliquem' to 'pro aliquem', it would seem that whoever made the correction was introducing a 'Visigothic' 'per'. Nevertheless, the many instances elsewhere in the codex of case confusion with prepositions (again, see examples above), and of confusion between (unabbreviated) 'per'/'pro' specifically, means that the 'per/pro aliquem' correction on fol. 110v should be treated with circumspection. Possibly, Hand D was a Continental scribe who was copying from a Visigothic exemplar and struggling to understand an Iberian abbreviation system that was different from his own. On the other hand, there are other features of Hand D ('on' ligature, dotted suspension marks) that suggest this scribe was trained in a Visigothic center.
Change of hands: 
Meens noticed three hands at work; in fact, there are four: Hand A copies as far as f. 7v; Hand B begins on f. 8r, after an erasure at the top of the page; Hand C begins at the top of f. 14v; and Hand D begins at the top of 31v. Hand D (and to a much lesser extent Hand C) shows occasional 'Visigothic' symptoms and may have received training in an Iberian scriptorium. Hand A and Hand B are virtually identical, but can be distinguished in at least two ways: 1) Hand A writes roman numeral 5 as 'U' (with one exception), while Hand B (as with all other scribes) writes 'V'; 2) Hand A always draws a round lobe on uncial 'a', while Hand B (with, again, the other scribes) often adds a point or even a spike to the tip of the lobe of 'a' (especially when 'a' is word-initial). Hand A uses for a suspension mark a plain, slightly wavy horizontal macron, which sometimes lifts upwards at its right end. Hand B employs a suspension mark that is generally thinner and can be both slightly curved or more angular, with a small triangular spike added to the middle when it reaches some length (e.g. f. 8r line 8). The abbreviation for '-rum' ('R' with a stroke through the arm) is common in Hand A's section. Neither Hand A nor Hand B abbreviates 'pro' (see discussion of 'Visigothic symptoms', above); they abbreviate 'per' (using the standard graph) almost only in the prefix 'super-' ('superponat', 'superpositionibus', etc., and once in 'perfectionis'). Otherwise, Hand A and Hand B only use the 'per' abbreviation with a following ablative noun ('per odio', 'per ebrietate', 'per commixtione', 'per omnibus'), so as to make it ambiguous whether in such cases the scribe intended this symbol to mean 'per' or 'pro'. On three occasions Hands A/B slip into writing minuscule: at f. 7v line 9 and f. 11r line 4 the scribes write a 'cc' form of 'a'; and at f. 14r line 17 Hand B writes a minuscule 'ri' ligature. Also, there is a 'us' ligature on f. 9r line 4, in which Hand B seems to have written a minuscule (straight-backed) 's', which was later corrected to an uncial 's'. Hand C is quite distinct from A/B, and writes a script that is generally rounder (yet more angular in its terminals and flourishes) and more uniform in height. Differences between Hands A/B and Hand C include the following. For 'e-caudata' Hands A/B draw a tail that is longer, is more pronounced and plummets more obliquely left than does the more vertical tail of Hand C, which is also much shorter and more simply-formed. Similarly, the tail of Hands A/B's 'g' is slanted and often curved at the bottom, whereas the tail on Hand C's 'g' is almost vertical and sometimes curled tightly (and rather extravagantly) or pointed. Hand C's lobe of 'a' is typically more ovular (sometimes even nearly flat) and downward-pointing, whereas A/B write an 'a' with a rounder lobe. The 'f' of Hand C has a horizontal tongue, whereas A/B write the tongue of their 'f' with a finial that bends downward. Hand C writes an 'e' whose upper bow and tongue do not usually meet, resulting in a 'forked' 'e' resembling a Greek epsilon; this is the same 'e' that is often written by the rubricator of the first 31 folios. The 't' of Hand C is broad-footed (having a thin horizontal stroke at the baseline), and its cross-top curls down on the left side, again like the 't' of the rubricator of the first 31 folios; the rubricator and Hand C are indeed probably the same scribe. A small 's' is used as an abbreviation sign after 'b' for '-bus' and after 'q' for '-que'. Hand C uses a simple horizontal line for a suspension mark, with tiny finials on each end, and a small stroke through the center on particularly long suspension marks. About 50 percent of the time, a dot has been added above a suspension mark (a 'Visigothic symptom' according to Lowe). Hand C uses the standard abbreviation for 'pro' only once, in 'proposito', and the standard abbreviation for 'per' three times, in 'per cultum', 'superscriptam' and 'superaugeat'. Hand D is slightly less angular than C, heavier, more uniform, and more consistent in execution. The 'a' is distinctive, with its tiny, pointed lobe attached to the top (instead of the middle) of the diagonal back and tilting downward dramatically, making it look almost like a rustic 'A'. The lobes of 'B' do not touch. The descenders of 'p' and 'q' are also distinct: whereas the other three hands drew these descenders to a point, or curved (or curled) them slightly inward or outward, Hand D draws these descenders straight down, ending with a vertical hairline. The ascender of Hand D's 'd' is also shorter and almost horizontal. The 'z' of Hand D is squat and wide. The 't' and 'g' of Hand D are essentially like those of Hand C. Also like Hand C, Hand D appears to have done his own rubricating. Abbreviation points/dots, e.g. after 'b' for '-bus', are well-formed and look like two tiny 's's. Hand D writes a flat suspension mark (very rarely it is slightly curved), with pointed finials, and almost always includes a point above (a 'Visigothic symptom'). Hand D uses 'per' and 'pro' abbreviations relatively frequently (for examples see discussion of scribal idiosyncrasies, above). Hand D occasionally abbreviates 'dixit' as 'd' with a diagonal stroke through its lobe (f. 112r line 1; f. 85r line 3), and '-mus' as '-m' with a cross through its right foot (f. 105v line 11). The 'on' ligature noticed by Lowe (supposedly another Visigothic symptom) is relatively common in Hand D's section, but does not occur anywhere else in the manuscript (ligatures in general, however, especially with 'u' and especially at end-line, are common throughout the codex). In the Libellus responsionum there are many instances of ambiguous use of abbreviations for 'episcopus': e.g. 'eps' can mean 'episcopum' (f. 92r line 15; f. 94v line 8) or 'episcopos' (f. 95v line 4) or 'episcopis' (f. 93r line 2); 'epis' can mean 'episcopi' (f. 92r line 8; f. 92v line 9) or 'episcopum' (f. 92r line 11) or 'episcopo' (f. 94r line 9). Hand D also shows occasional substitution of 'b' for 'p' and some confusion of 'o' and 'u' in its orthography (see scribal idiosyncrasies, above).
Relationship to other manuscripts: 
Copenhagen 58's contents are remarkably similar to those of Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 572 (2026), fols 51–107, an early ninth-century manuscript thought to represent a 'special' version of the appendix of the Collectio vetus Gallica.