Since the late 19th century, historians of medieval canon law have been compiling a list of textual materials common to ‘Poitevin’ collections. Such a methodological approach has both advanced and obscured the origins and meaning behind what is now an established ‘Poitevin’ standard. Many of these collections use Burchard of Worms and the Collection in Seventy-Four Titles as their florilegia, while others exhibit materials of a more diverse origin, organization, and nature. In truth, the various collections and manuscripts associated with Poitiers exhibit as many textual uncertainties as similarities. Building on the work of Roger Reynolds, Linda Fowler-Magerl, Uta-Renate Blumenthal, Joseph Goering, and Christof Rolker, this paper seeks to clarify the situation by ‘looking behind’ the manuscript evidence of a few well-known ‘Poitevin’ collections of the late 11th century.
The Collection in Ten Parts is heavily dependent on the Panormia: Parts 1-3 correspond to the same Books of the Panormia, and Parts 5-9 correspond to the Books 4-8. The similarity between both of them is, in some cases, amazing: the sequence of the canons from the Panormia in 10P is followed extremely closely in Parts 1 and 6 to 9 (Books 1 and 5 to 8 of the Panormia). But some times the compiler of 10P departs from the Panormia and takes the auctoritates from other sources, some of them still unknown. This paper will focus on these differences in order to understand the compiler’s mind and, if possible, to discover its formal sources
The activity of Anglo-Norman canonists in the later 12th century is well-known in the Decretals. It is much less clear how widespread was study and particularly teaching of Gratian’s work in their circle. A study of three abbreviations of Gratian in English libraries before c. 1200 provides some evidence on the issue.