Manuscripta juridica

Lectura Decretalium: (X.2.23 rubrica - X.2.30.8) , probably based on the commentary by Johannes de Imola.

The text does not correspond to the best-known commentary by Nicolaus de Tudeschis abbas Panormitanus. Collation of texts in X.2.23 showed no similarity in wording. It rather appears that these are lecture notes, and that the course in which they were taken was based on the commentary by Johannes de Imola (see note on fol. 112r, transcribed below).

The present MS uses the same types of paper as MSS 200 and 257, although it appears that the three MSS were each written by a different scribe, and also the second series of marginal notes in MS 199 was written by yet another scribe. The three MSS equally have in common that they contain lecture notes from law courses which were based on commentaries by Johannes de Imola - which were obviously held in high esteem at the university in question, as attested by MS 201. The three first-mentioned MSS probably belong together and originated from the same university, in the same time period.

The Library's inventory attributes all three MSS to the early 16th century. Yet, Neil R. Ker attributed the present MS to the late 15th century, and this is more probable for the following reasons: the three MSS probably share with MS 201 one type of paper (namely watermark {i}p{/i}), the watermarks in MS 201 clearly point to the middle of the 15th century, and all three first-mentioned MSS share variants of an anchor watermark which was fashionable in the second and third quarter of the 15th century. Furthermore, the three MSS use types of handwriting which were already used in the 15th century (compare the hastily written part of MS 201, fol. 2-15). I also deem it possible that they, too, formed part of Bishop Elphinstone's library. In their present state of preservation they do not bear the bishop's signature, as the other volumes from his library do, but in former times the MSS may have had flyleaves, and the bishop may have written his signature on those flyleaves - which are not preserved.

Foliation on the outer margin, in pencil. After recent restauration (because the margins were mouldy) the leaves are now bound in two volumes: fol. 1-215 and fol. 216-439. The former first leaf was preserved as a separate item because it had fallen out and had separately been attended to by the book preservation unit. This is why this first leaf is not bound with the rest, but kept as a separate item, under shelfmark 199 i. It comprises lecture notes to X.2.23 de praesumptionibus, rubrica. X.2.23.1 Sicut noxius. Other side: X.2.23.2 Afferte mihi. The bound first volume's first leaf, numbered '1', was probably the second or third leaf of the original volume.

The text fol. 1r-272r was written by only one scribe. He also added keywords in the margins. The scribe applied himself to write neatly, and he tended to separate the letters from each other, in order to improve legibility. Another scribe wrote from fol. 272v onwards, and probably carried on to the end on fol. 439v, the handwriting becoming ever more hasty. In addition to the light brown ink of the text, red ink was used for paragraph marks and underlining. The use of red ink ceases after fol. 45, however.

A user of the MS wrote additional notes in the margin, in darker ink. See on fol. 112r in the title 2.24 De iureiurando one particularly long note: Dominus Johannes de Ymola in l. Alia [D.12.2.18], parag. Eligens(?) alias ponit casus(?) reus quando debitor non vult acceptare inducias ad solvendum.

[{i}Interesting text passage fol. 112v:{/i}] Set quia hodie coram domino rectore(?) similiter(?) et conservatore privilegiorum(?) huius studii Lovaniensis pendent alique cause cessionum, et sum rogatus videre quid fiendum in illis, idcirco.

[{i}The text of fol. 215v breaks off in X.2.27.10, in the middle of a sentence, and continues on fol. 216r in the second volume, without any loss of text:{/i}] Vel potest dici quod pendebat lis, quia facta fuit citatio a iudice coram quo retractatio sive // fieri debuit, prout notatur in Cle. ii. ut lite pendente [Clem. 2.5.2]. Sequitur c. Consanguinei [X.2.27.11].

[{i}The text of fol. 439v breaks off in X.2.30.8 which is the penultimate chapter of the second book of the Decretales Gregorii IX, in the middle of a sentence:{/i}] in glosa penultima in fine. Nota bene istam glosam que vult

---

Author(s):

• Johannes de Imola

No. of pages: Fol. 1r-215v