Published in Niccolò Tedeschi (Abbas Panormitanus) e i suoi Commentaria in Decretales, ed. Orazio Condorelli (Roma: Il Cigno Galileo Galilei, 2000) 9-36 also published in a slightly up-dated version on CD Rom: Nicholaus de Tudeschis, (Abbas Panormitanus) Commentaria in Decretales Gregorii IX et in Clementinas Epistolas, Introduzione di Kenneth Pennington, progetto e realizzazione di Barbara Bellomo (2 Diskettes, Roma: Il Cigno Galileo Galilei, Edizioni Informatiche, 2000). This text has a few corrections and additions. See especially endnote 25a.
Kenneth Pennington
Nicolaus de Tudeschis
(Panormitanus)
|
Panormitanus' Tomb in the Crypt of the Duomo in Palermo |
Panormitanus' Tomb in the Crypt of the Duomo in Palermo Click on pictures for enlarged views |
I. Life
The twelfth-century cathedral in Palermo contains the tombs of the great Sicilian monarchs King Roger II, Emperors Henry VI, Frederick II, and also the tomb of a great Sicilian jurist, Nicolaus de Tudeschis, more commonly known by the name, Panormitanus, which he received after he became Archbishop of Palermo in 1434. His tomb is a "reused" Roman sarcophagus, with a lid bearing his epitaph. It reads, in part, “The canons, jurisprudence, and Roman law has died with your death, and they lie buried in this place. You, Nicolaus, were born of Teutonic blood in Catania and held the bishopric of Palermo”[1]. Most likely his name ‘de Tudeschis’ means that he was born of a German (Tedeschi) family that settled in Eastern Sicily and that became part of the ruling elite in Catania during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. We have one instance of his having given his complete name in a letter dated 1425-1430: “Nicolaus de Tudisco Siculus Matantensis”[2].
Nicolaus was born at Catania in 1386[3]. At an early age he joined the Benedictine order but was sent at a young age to study in the North. After having received a stipend in either 1405 or 1406 from the Senate of Catania, he matriculated in the law school at Bologna. Antonius de Butrio and Francesco Zabarella, the two leading canonists of the early fifteenth century, may have taught him, but we cannot be certain that he studied with Zabarella, who was teaching at Padua when Nicolaus was studying in Bologna. He began teaching in ca. 1411, at the age of 25, first at Bologna, and then in Parma, and Siena. Having taught in Parma from 1411 to 1418 he then moved to Siena, where he stayed until ca. 1430. Documents refer to him as “Doctor Decretorum” while he taught at Siena, but he did not write a commentary on the Decretum until 1436. During his Sienese career, his literary work focussed on the Decretales of Gregory IX[4].
His family must have had considerable influence in Catania. He became a canon of the Cathedral chapter in 1415 while teaching in Parma. When the bishop of Syracuse died, the Senate of Catania postulated his selection to the vacant post to Pope Martin V, but he was not appointed. During the Council of Siena, 1423-1424, he worked with the ambassadors of the King of Sicily and held a disputation that many of the assembled dignitaries attended[5]. A short time later, Nicolaus was appointed abbot of Santa Maria di Maniace in 1425, which is located on the north-western shoulder of Mount Etna. The monastery marked the place where the Normans and the Byzantine general George Maniakes defeated the Moslems ca. 1040. To commemorate the victory, the Greeks immediately built a church on the spot. Count Roger I and Countess Adelaide expanded it into a monastic foundation ca. 1070[6]. Since he obtained the abbacy with the help of the Senate of Catania and since he seems to have held it in absentia, this office must have been intended to provide him with a sinecure. Nonetheless, because he bore the title of abbot, he became known as “Abbas modernus” or “Abbas siculus” among the jurists. One wonders whether there was just a trace of irony in their use of the name.
He remained in Siena until ca. 1431, when he moved back to Bologna and received a stipend of 600 pounds from the commune to teach the Decretals during the year 1431-1432. During this short stay, we have a repetitio that he dated Bologna, 5 May, 1432[7]. The next day, the Florentines invited him to deliver “Lectio<nes> Decretorum” at the Studio Florentino [8]. They noted that his new post was supported by “universo populo nostro”[9]. He accepted the offer, even though a few months later Venice bid for his services in Padua. The Venetians “postulated” him to their post, but the Florentines vigorously rejected their attempt to bring Panormitanus to Padua[10]. One of the reasons the Florentines gave for denying the Venetian request was the large number of students who came to their Studio because of Panormitanus' fame[11]. Although certain evidence is lacking,[12] if we may believe the rhetoric of the Florentines, it is unlikely that Panormitanus would have abandoned those students completely. One may tentatively conclude that he may have taught at Florence for several years (to ca. 1435), in the periods when he was not in Basel. While in Florence, he may have examined the Littera Florentina, the late antique copy of Justinian’s Digest that had recently been transferred from Pisa[13].
At this point Panormitanus entered the wider stage of papal and conciliar politics. Pope Martin V had convened a general council in Basel according to the provisions of the decree Haec sancta that had been promulgated at the Council of Constance[14]. The new pope, Eugenius IV dissolved the council on 18 December, 1431 with a solemn papal bull. He viewed the council as an impediment to the unification of the Eastern and Western churches and as a danger to papal prerogatives. When the council rejected pope’s authority to dissolve it, Eugenius sent a delegation of legates to represent him and to negotiate. Panormitanus was an auditor in the papal curia and accepted Eugenius’s mandate to join the delegation[15]. After arriving at the council in March, 1433, he defended Eugenius’ position with sermons on 9 March and on 13 July before the council[16]. Eugenius’s proposals were not well received, and Panormitanus left the council[17].
The death of Ubertino dei Marini, the archbishop of Palermo, presented an opportunity for Panormitanus to hold high office. The king of Sicily, Alfonso V, ignored the rights of the cathedral chapter and placed him in the see. He renounced the abbacy of Maniace and was confirmed by Pope Eugenius IV on 9 March, 1435.
As archbishop of Palermo, Panormitanus’ role at the Council of Basel changed dramatically. He no longer represented papal interests when he returned to the council as Alfonso’s ambassador in 1436[18]. A young jurist, Ludovicus Pontanus, was also in the delegation. He would die at Basel of the plague at the age of thirty[19]. When Eugenius successfully persuaded a minority of the participants at Basel to convene the council in Ferrara (later, in 1439, transferred to Florence), Panormitanus did not follow Nicolaus of Cusa and many of the Italian bishops to Ferrara in 1437. He remained in Basel, and, with the support of Charles VII, king of France, the council issued a series of documents that affirmed the superiority of the council over the pope[20]. In 1438, Panormitanus was sent to Frankfurt as the council’s representative before the Reichstag[21]. The council in Basel declared that Eugenius was deposed, elected Duke Amadeus of Savoy pope. He took the name, Felix V. The new pope created Panormitanus a cardinal in 1440. Felix asked Panormitanus to compile the conciliar decrees of Constance and Basel into a canonical collection, but he never seems to have finished the job. His contemporaries remarked on his ability to switch sides on an issue. Aeneas Sylvius Piccolominus (Pope Pius II) wrote in his De gestis of Panormitanus’ struggle with his conscience and his duty to support his king. ‘Panormitanus had been made leader of the conciliar party at the council not through his own wish, but through necessity alone, and he was bound to obey his prince’[22]. As Nörr and Watanabe have noted, his thought is not completely consistent. He arrived at Basel a supporter of the papacy and left an advocate of conciliar supremacy. His speeches at Basel reflect these two positions[23]. These conciliar sermons can be compared with a quaestio written in 25 April, 1426, ‘Episcopus et quidam rector curatus’ in which Panormitanus dealt with papal authority and supported papal prerogatives within the church before he became involved in ecclesiastical politics[24].
After Alfonso V concluded a treaty with Eugenius IV at Terracina in 1443, he recalled his delegation, and Panormitanus returned to Palermo. His stay was short. On February 24, 1445 he died of the plague. His legacy was rich and varied. He was without a doubt the most influential jurist of the fifteenth century. His conciliar thought also found resonance in the work of later thinkers. Even Martin Luther admired him[25].
II. Works[25a]
1. Commentary on the Decretum
Antony Black discovered an unfinished commentary on the Decretum in Lucca, Biblioteca Capitolare Feliniana, Cod. 160, fol. 250v-263v and published a description of the text in 1970. The late fifteenth-century jurist, Felinus Sandeus had written a work entitled “Additiones ad principiatum ab Abbate opus in Decretum” and the Lucca manuscript was probably a part of his collection when he was archbishop of Lucca[26]. Panormitanus began writing the work in Basel on 18 December 1436 according to his preface. Because, most likely, of the turbulent politics at Basel and, as he noted, because of a lack of books at hand, his commentary ended with Distinctio prima of the Decretum. In this extensive fragment, Panormitanus discussed the theology and jurisprudence of natural law, equity, and positive law. According to Antony Black, who is the only scholar to have examined the manuscript in detail, Panormitanus cited the Archdeacon, Aristotle, and Thomas Aquinas frequently[27].
2. Commentary (Lectura) on the Decretals of Gregory IX
Panormitanus work his commentary on the Decretals over a long period of time and revised his work continuously[28]. He probably began writing when he started teaching in ca. 1411 and must have completed it by the time he began to participate in the Council of Basel. He did not comment on all parts of the Decretals equally. Even a superficial reading reveals that he expended much more time and effort on books two and three than on books one, four, and five. Book one is only a bit less detailed that books two and three, but he gave four and five only rudimentary treatment. He never commented on all of book one. There is no evidence that he wrote or taught the titles from X.1.7 to X.1.28 (see discussion below).
Much more work has to be done on the manuscript tradition of his commentary in order to understand the evolution of the text that we have in the printed editions. The manuscripts of book one reveal that he wrote two, or possibly three, slightly different versions of that part of his commentary. The first version is contained in most of the manuscripts and does not contain the long prologue to Gregory IX’s introductory letter to his Decretals, Rex pacificus. In the version without the prologue, Panormitanus began his Lectura at X.1.1.1, “De constitutionibus: Hec rubrica potest ad precedentia et sequentia sic continuari. Tractaturus auctor de iure premisit rubricam de summa trinitatis”. The second version, contained in all the printed editions, has the prologue and a commentary on Rex pacificus. However, it is possible that a version of his commentary on book one, in a manuscript that I have not seen, Leipzig Universitätsbibliothek 1044, may even be earlier than the two just mentioned. It contains Panormitanus’ commentary to X.1.5-6, preceded by Johannes de Imola’s commentary to X.1.1.1 to 1.4. The manuscript concludes with Panormitanus’ apparatus from X.1.28 to the end of book one. A rubric in this manuscript dates the commentary to 1426. At that time he was teaching in Siena. The rubric reads: “De postulationibus prelatorum et electionibus collecta per ipsum in universitate studii Senesis ubi kathedram rexit ordinariam anno domini 1426”[29]. The other well known date that Panormitanus gave for the completion of a stage of his commentary is at the beginning of book two. In his introduction to the second book (de iudiciis) he stated that he had begun his commentary in 1421 and had worked on it for ten years[30].
In the printed editions the last four books of his commentary on the Decretals of Gregory IX are more or less the same in all the editions. The manuscripts, however, have slightly more variations. In one manuscript of book three, Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek lat. 23686, Panormitanus wrote a dedicatory letter to Hugh de Lusignan, Cardinal deacon of St. Adrian. The letter begins[31]:
Reverendissime domine Hugo ecclesie nostre militantis dispositione divina sancti Adriani cardinalis dignissime, qui ex illo quondam illustrissimo et sapientissimo principi Jacobo Cipri rege natale sortitus es, et hanc ipsam ecclesiam tuo tuorumque splendore velud celeste quoddam sidu irradias et illustras.
Hugh became Cardinal deacon of St Adrian in 1426 and was translated to the title of St. Clement in 1431. Panormitanus referred to himself as “Nicolaus de Tudisco Siculus Matantensis” and noted in the letter that he wrote the work “cum in hoc scribendi et legendi munere intempestive etatem fere meam contriuissem quietem et silentium persuaseram”[32]. Since Panormitanus was elected abbot of Santa Maria di Maniace in 1425 and since Hugh became a cardinal priest of Saint Clement in 1431, the commentary in this manuscript can be dated to his tenure in Siena. The text of Clm 23686 is quite different in many respects from the text of book three found in other manuscripts and in the printed editions[33]. Another part of Panormitanus’ commentary can be securely dated to his stay in Siena. The colophon from Bologna, Collegio di Spagna, 211 that contains commentary to the fourth book of the Decretals was written in Siena[34]. The manuscript tradition of Panormitanus’ commentary on the Decretals serves as an admonition and a challenge to scholars. On the one hand, it is no longer possible to study his thought without carefully checking and comparing the texts in the manuscripts. The manuscripts will offer important clues about the evolution of his thought. The list of manuscripts that follows is incomplete but will offer a beginning for future research[35].
Book 1 (without prologue) X.1.1-1.6 and X.1.29-1.43: Eichstätt, Universitätsbibliothek 167, München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek (= Clm) 6551, Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana (= Vat.) lat. 2248[36], Vat. lat. 2549[37], Vat. Pal. lat. 660. Leipzig, Universitätsbibliothek 1093.
Book 1 (with prologue): Clm 5473[38], Tyler Texas, City Library, MS (not numbered).
Book 1, X.1.1.-1.6: Vat. lat. 2247, fol. 1r-27r, 38r-221v.
Book 2[39], X.2.1-2.13.: Assisi, Bibl. com. Fondo antico 201, Vat. lat. 2550[40].
Book 2, X.2.1-2.18: Clm 5474, Clm 6536[41], Clm 23685, Vat. lat. 2249, Vat. Pal. lat. 661, Vat. Pal. lat. 663.
Book 2, X.2.1-2.20.4: Vat. lat. 2551 (additiones Nicolai in the margins)[42].
Book 2, X.2.14-2.24: Vat. lat. 2553.
Book 2, X.2.14-2.23: Assisi, Bibl. com. Fondo antico 202.
Book 2, X.2.19-2.21: Eichstätt, Universitätsbibliothek 500, fol. 1r-218v.
Book 2, X.2.19-2.24: Vat. lat. 2250.
Book 2, X.2.20.5-2.30: Vat. lat. 2552 (additiones Nicolai in the margins).
Book 2, X.2.25-2.30: Bologna, Collegio di Spagna, 224, Clm 6537, fol. 1r-196v, Vat. lat. 2251, Vat. lat. 2554[43], Vat. Palatina lat. 654, Vat. Palatina lat. 664.
Book 3: Clm 6534, Clm 23686, Vat. lat. 2252, Vat. lat. 2555, fol. 1r-325v, Vat. lat. 2556, Vat. lat. 2557, Vat. Palatina lat. 662.
Book 3, X.3.32-3.50: Bologna, Collegio di Spagna, 85.
Book 3, X.3.1-3.10 and X.3.32-3.50: Bologna, Collegio di Spagna, 225.
Book 4: Assisi, Bibl. com. Fondo antico, 200, fol. 110r-186v, Bologna, Collegio di Spagna, 211, fol. 187ra-261ra, Leipzig, Universitätsbibliothek 1054, London, British Library Royal IX.F.i and Royal 11.E.vii, Clm 6537, fol. 197r-262v, Clm 22361, Vat. lat. 2253, fol. 1r-72v[44], Vat. lat. 2558, fol. 1r-74v, Vat. Palatina lat. 666, fol. 1r-77v.
Book 5: Assisi, Bibl. com. Fondo antico 200, fol. 190r-358v, Eichstätt, Universitätsbibliothek 169, London, British Library Royal 11.E.vii, Clm 5322, Clm 6553, Clm 6554, Clm 23859, Philadelphia, Free Library, J.F. Lewis Collection 161, Vat. lat. 2253, fol. 73r-261v, Vat. lat. 2558, fol. 75r-270v, Vat. Pal. lat. 665.
The witness of the manuscripts suggests that Panormitanus wrote his commentary in the years while he taught in Siena and that he wrote several recensions of some books. As will be discusses below, he also wrote additiones to his commentary.
3. The Tract “De translatione episcoporum” and Other Falsifications
The manuscripts containing book one demonstrate conclusively that Panormitanus did not write a commentary on X.1.7-1.28. The earliest printings of his commentary follow the manuscript tradition and omit any commentary between De translatione (X.1.7) and De officio et potestate iudicis delegati (X.1.29)[45]. Relatively early, printers placed Antonio de Butrio’s commentary from X.1.7 to X.1.28 into the lacuna. A manuscript like the one that now resides in Tyler Texas, City Library may have provided the printers with the model, since it also has Butrio’s commentary in this place[46]. An incunable in the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek (Munich) that is sine anno et loco contains Panormitanus’ Lectura with de Butrio’s commentary as an supplement[47]. In Nürnberg Anton Koberger printed de Butrio’s commentary to the missing titles of book one at the end of January, 1486[48]. Koberger had just finished setting the type of Panormitanus’ Lectura on book one on 2 December, 1485 (part 1) and on 12 January, 1486 (part 2). As both books have the same format and typefaces, he clearly intended that this slim volume would be sold with Panormitanus’ Lectura on book one. Although Koberger’s Butrio seems to have circulated separately for the most part, I have found one copy with a fifteenth-century binding in which the Butrio was bound inbetween Panormitanus’ Lectura on book one[49]. In the same year, Bernardinus de Novaria placed de Butrio’s commentary in his printing of Panormitanus’ Lectura. He placed it directly into book one as part of the text, exactly as the scribe in the Tyler, Texas manuscript had done[50].
Printers abhor vacuums. Panormitanus’ commentary on the Decretals of Gregory IX was one of the most important books in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century law. When Ferdinand and Isabella issued a pragmática in 1499 to sanction which jurists could be used in canonical court cases, Johannes Andreae and Parnormitanus were the two authors singled out as being preferred authoriities[51]. His fame spread during the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries and so did the editions of his works. His books were collected even in the outposts of the Ius commune. For example, the libraries in the Oxford colleges contained 47 printings of his works[52]. Entrepeneurial printers wanted to sell more copies of his Lectura, and their customers would have likely appreciated a printer who had thoughtfully provided a decretal commentary for those titles Panormitanus skipped. The printers decided to add Antonio de Butrio’s commentary for the missing parts. Then, however, the story has an interesting twist. Martin Huss, a printer in Lyon, according to the information in Hain 12370 “discovered” a commentary of Panormitanus on the missing titles, or, most probably, purposely misattributed an anonymous work to the great jurist. As the lack of an asterick to Hain’s number indicates, Hain never saw the volume, and we have no idea from where he got his information and why he decided that Huss was the printer. False attributions of authorship were common among early-printed legal works. Printers could earn more more by ascribing an anonymous or little-known work to Baldus, Bartolus, or Panormitanus[53]. In the case of Panormitanus, it seems likely that the commentary on the Digest attributed to him in the editions of 1566 and 1617 are not correct, since we have no manuscripts for these works[54]. The same also is true of the printed editions of a commentary on the Sext of Boniface VIII[55]. A work of Johannes Urbach, Processus iudicii, was attributed to Panormitanus by various printers at around the same time and was reprinted continuously during the sixteenth century[56].
In any case, Huss printed a commentary on De translatione without a date, place of publication or his name. Huss announced the great find in an introductory rubric:
Lectura domini abbatis super rubrica de translatione episcoporum cum viginti et una rubricis exinde sequentibus, omnibus in libris iam a nostris predecessoribus publicatis deficientibus, cuius inventio totum iam impressum complet, perficit et solidat opus.
There are, as far as I know, only five copies of this book[57]. Hain did not date this edition, but the cataloguer of the Würzburg incunabulum has dated it by taking into account, or so it seems, the evidence of the volume with which it was bound: Henricus de Segusio’s Summa on books one and two that bear the date 1478 but no place. According to the compiler of the catalogue, Ilona Hubay, the volume was published in Strasbourg[58]. From the type fonts and paper, it is clear that, though bound together, they were not printed in the same shop. One might presume, since the binding is late fifteenth century, that the volumes were printed about the same time.
Of the other four books that Hain assigned to Huss’ shop, he had examined only one personally[59]. Nonetheless, Hain must have had a knowledgeable source or keen judgment, for he is quite likely right. The new catalogue of incunabula in the Bibliothèque nationale in Paris has identified the type font of 12370 as one used by Huss in 1478[60]. On this evidence and that of the Würzburg volume we can likely date Huss’ printing to the late 1470’s.
The text of Hain 12370 presents some intriguing problems. The commentary of “Panormitanus” does not end at X.1.9.5, as it does in all the later inserts into his Lectura but continues to fill the entire lacuna of book one to X.1.28.6. But, whereas the first part of this commentary follows Antonio de Butrio’s rather closely, at times word for word, it is, to X.1.9.5, not de Butrio’s. There are frequent references to “Dominus Antonius”’ in this part of the text. From X.1.9.5, however, the text printed in this edition is de Butrio’s work with only minor variations.
Huss’ book came to the attention of printers in Basel and Venice in the 1480’s. A printer in Basel, Johann Auerbach, was no fool[61]. He recognized de Butrio’s authorship of the section from X.1.9.6 to 1.28 but decided, perhaps because he could not identify the section from X.1.7 to 1.9.5, that the first section was indeed that of Panormitanus. He may have been reassured by the sentence at the end of X.1.9.5: “Et sic expedita est decretalis ista. Nicolaus abbas excellentissimus”, which is the only ascription to Panormitanus in Huss’ printing. Auerbach added a rubric to the beginning of X.1.9.6 that read:
Incipit lectura excellentissimi utriusque interpretis domini Antonii de Butrio a c. In presentia, de renun. usque ad titulum de offic. del. super quibus dominus abbas non scripsit uel si scripsit, reperiri non potuit.
Thus Auerbach printed de Butrio’s text in his edition for X.1.9.6 to X.1.28. He also seems to have collated Butrio’s commentary anew (at least to a limited extent) and added de Butrio’s name to the end of various decretals and material that earlier printings had omitted[62].
The history of the Venetian printings is more complicated. In October 1484, Johannes Antonius Birreta and Franciscus Girardengus published the first volume of Panormitanus’ Lectura but omitted the titles from X.1.9.6 to 1.28[63]. They continued to publish the remaining four volumes of his commentary, with the last appearing in June, 1486[64]. At some time between 1484 and 1486, they must have learned that the missing titles had been partially found. Two weeks have finishing book five of Panormitanus’ commentary, they printed “Panormitanus” X.1.7-1.9.5, and, unlike Auerbach, they included Antonio de Butrio’s complete text, X.1.7-1.28. A few years later, Johannes and Francescus reprinted their edition with “Panormitanus” (X.1.7-1.9.5) and de Butrio (X.1.7-1.28.6) following the text of Panormitanus after X.1.6[65]. They placed the following rubric to the beginning of X.1.7:
Sequitur rubrica lecta per Abbatem post hanc sequentes per Antonium de Butrio patefacte.
Not all printers followed their lead. At the beginning of the 1490’s Dionisio Betocchi and Gabriele de Brescia, printers in Venice, were surprisingly conservative. The left out both “Panormitanus” X.1.7 to 1.9.5 and de Butrio[66]. One might cautiously conclude that the new “Panormitanus” was still a questionable text and that printers were not entirely convinced that it was genuine.
The printers were not, however, men of iron. Although they may have had doubts about this section, they also had to complete with a surprising number of editions[67]. They did not want their offering to the market to be thought defective or to provide less value to their customers than other printings. Battista Torti, together with Bernardus ex Capitaneis, printed a new edition in Venice 1496-1497[68]. For their edition they followed the model provided by Johannes Antonius Birreta and Franciscus Girardengus. This text became canonical. All sixteenth-century editions printed the same text of Book one[69].
4. Repetitiones
Panormitanus wrote several repetitiones that were inserted into his commentaries on the Decretals, into his consilia, or printed separately[70]. The following list makes no pretence of completeness[71].
Edition: Venice 1491 (Hain *12369). This edition of eleven folios was printed with Goffredus de Trani’s Summa super titulis decretalium (Hain *15601) and even though Hain listed it as a separate number, the printer published the two works as one.
I. X.1.2.10 (Ecclesia Sanctae Mariae, De constitutionibus): Clm 7438, fol. 1r-16r: “facta per dominum Nicolaum de Sicilia in studio ciuitatis Senarum 1424”; Vat. lat. 2247, fol. 27r-38r[72], Vienna, Nationalbibliothek 5346; Panormitanus, Disputationes (Cologne 1477) (Hain *12355).
II. X.1.43.9 (Per tuas litteras, De arbitris): Panormitanus, Consilia (Venice 1605), fol. 178v. Vienna, Nationalbibliothek 1528[73].
III. 2.2.4 (Si quis contra clericum, De foro competenti): Panormitanus, Disputationes (Cologne 1477) (Hain *12355) (Rubric [in fine]: “Repetitum fuit per me Nicolaum de Sicilia decretorum doctorem in almo studio Senensi tunc ibi actualiter legentem anno domini M.quadringentesimodecimonono”).
IV. X.3.5.30 (Exstirpandae, De praebendis): Appendix to Commentary to Book III of Decretals, Perugia s.d. [1476?] Würzburg, Universitätsbibliothek [Signature I.t.f. VI] (Hain – ).
V. 3.26.10 (Cum esses, De testamentis): Vienna, Nationalbibliothek 5346[74].
5. Notes to the Ordinary Gloss of the Clementines
Panormitanus wrote a set of “notes and allegationes” to the Clementines. His treatment, as the title suggests, was not exhaustive. We do not know exactly when he wrote it, but we can assume, because it was based on the Ordinary Gloss to the Clementines, that it was the product of his teaching. A German, Johannes Heller, took advantage of Panormitanus’ participation at the Council of Basel to copy the text in 1438. The manuscript now resides in Munich under the signature Clm 6604.
Manuscripts: Clm 6604, fol. 378r-481v[75]; Clm 8303, fol. 130v-178v, Vat. lat. 2693, fol. 177r-194r, Vat. Palatina lat. 107r-165v[76] Vienna, Nationalbibliothek 5045, Vienna, Nationalbibliothek 5072, Vienna, Nationalbibliothek 5103, Vienna, Nationalbibliothek 5468.
Editions: Rome 1474 (Hain *12337); s.l. 1476[77]; Cologne 1477 (Hain *12338); Venice 1496 (Hain *12342).
6. Consilia
The vulgate text in the sixteenth century contained two books of consilia containing 108 and 118 consilia each.
Not all the consilia were Panormitanus’.
The first incunabula editions contained ca. 104-107 consilia.
The Pescia edition published 118 and was entitled Consilia
secundi voluminis. In subsequent editions, these two printing traditions were
combined. Andrea Romano has examined
Lucca, Biblioteca Capitolare Feliniana, 162, which contains a large number of
Panormitanus' consilia.[78] The manuscript belonged the Felinus
Sandeus, the learned bishop of Pisa. It contains
most of the consilia from the first and second printings.
The first half of the manuscript contains consilia that were included in the first incunabula editions. Romano dates them to the period 1425-1436. The second half
of the manuscript (fol. 137r-277v) contains consilia
from the "Second Volume".[79]
Daniela Novarese found and printed a consilium in Palermo, Biblioteca Comunale
3.Qq.C.45 that he wrote after he became archbishop of Palermo.[80] As the manuscript tradition is explored, more
unedited consilia will undoubtedly be discovered.
Manuscripts: Cambrai, Bibl. mun. 207; Lucca, Biblioteca Capitolare Feliniana, 162; Madrid, B.N. 2139, fol, 52v-65v and 73r-78v; Torino, Biblioteca nazionale G.II.21, fol. 21-457; Vat. Urb. lat. 1132.
Editions: s.d. s.l. (Hain 12343), Hain attributes this edition to Strasbourg 1474 (104 consilia, not all by Panormitanus); Ferrara 1475 (Hain *12345) (104 consilia by Panormitanus and three by other jurists)[81]; Venice 1486 (Hain *12348); Pescia 1488 (Hain *12352) (118 consilia); Venice 1491 (Hain *12353) (118 consilia)[82].
7. Quaestiones, Disputationes et Allegationes
The titles of the following editions vary from Quaestiones et disputationes to Desceptationes et allegationes. The early editions contain either six (Venice 1487) or seven quaestiones (Cologne 1477) dated between 1421 and 1430[83]. The sixteenth-century editions usually contain seven quaestiones[84], and they were normally printed with the consilia. The printing history has yet to be sorted out.
The Cologne 1477 edition prints them in the following order and with the noted rubrics[85].
I. “Sempronius clericus bona patrimonialia obtinens ad curiam Romanam proficiscens episcopatum a Romano pontifice obtinuit ad propriaque regressus cum cuiusdam hospitalis rectore eidemque per patrimonium duntaxat profecto multifarie contraxit ac inventario de bonis episcopatus non confecto quedam ipsius episcopatus bona locavit pro pluribus futuris annis superioris auctoritate intercedente pensionem recipiens”.
II. “Titius clericus ex sui beneficii ecclesiastici redditibus patrimonio conservato vitam ducens ab eodem beneficio abiectus extitit et spolitatus existens dicto beneficio renunciauit sponte sibimet postmodum restitutionem petenti”. (Rubric [in fine]: “Hec questio disputata fuit per dominum Nicolaum de Sicilia decretorum doctorem famosissimum im amplo Senensi studio anno domini M.cccc.xxiii.(sic)[86] die vero vicesima quinta Januarii et ad utranque partem dubiorum respondit spectabilis et generosus vir dominus Gandolfus Dyay (sic) Aragonensis in iure canonico eleganter peritus. Et intererant in disputationis actu prelatorum magistrorum et doctorum copia quia Senas concilii generalis causa venerant”).
III. “Augerio patronatum in basilica Nichostrati iure sibi dilatum Plaucius laicus mera liberalitate contulit ad eandem vacantem patrono neglecto, imminente adhuc tempore electionis et presentationis a iure statuto antistes actorem clericum instituit quadrimestri denique elapso Plaucius filio herede superstite diem persolvit extremum quo minime accersito donationem paternam et ratificavit episcopus”. (Rubric: “Disputata fuit hec questio per dominum Nicolaum de Sicilia Momacen. abbatem et decretorum doctorem in famosissimo Senarum studio anno domini Millesimo quadringentesimo vicesimo septimo et ad utranque partem dubiorum respondit subtilissimus scholaris dominus Jonannes de Alemania nunc vero doctor egregius”).
IV. “Gandulfus clericus scolarium Senensium pro maiori parte laicorum rector Lambertum Florentium clericum eiusdem universitatis scolarem in mille ex depositi causa condemnavit a cuius sententia ad Senensem episcopum appellat Lambertus Gandolfo rectori”. (Rubric: “Disputatio fuit hec supradicta per dominum Nicolaum de Sicilia abbatem et decretorum doctorem in felici Senen. studio anno domini M.cccc.xxx. ad utranque partem dubiorum respondit auditor meus benivolus dominus Franciscus archipresbyter Funden.”).
V. “Episcopus et quidam rector Pronien. per Romanum pontificem eorum prelaturis nulla rationabili causa privati ad futurum concilium appellaverunt, congregato concilio an prefata appellatio esset admittenda”. (Rubric [in fine]: “Disputata fuerunt hec dubia per dominum Nicolaum de Sicilia abbatem Momacen. et decretorum doctorem Senis legentem anno domini M.cccc.xxvi. in ecclesia Sancti Marci et ad utranque partem dubiorum summe respondit vir notabilis et magne scientie dominus Robertus de Calcantibus[87] de Florentia auditor meus benignus”).
VI. “Stante statuto condito in Italia prohibente minores xxv. annis obligari sine certa solennitate observata quia postposito eodem statuto posito quod contractus ipsi in quibus reperientur minores obligati sint ficticii et simulati et pro ficticiis et simulatis habeantur nec valet iuramentum super eis prestitum”. (Rubric [in fine]: “Disputata fuit hec questio per dominum Nicolaum de Sicilia decretorum doctorem in famosissimo studio Senarum et ad utranque partem dubiorum respondit peritissimus vir dominus Petrus Antonii auditor meus civis et canonicus Senen. anno domini M.ccccxxi. die vero xxviiii. Januarii”).
VII. “Duo clerici ordine insigniti quorum alter exemptionis privilegio erat redimitus se adinvicem invidia vel indignatione percusserunt sicque in sententiam canonis, Si quis suadente, pariter inciderunt”.
Manuscripts: Torino, Biblioteca nazionale G.II.21, fol. 21-457, Vienna, Nationalbibliothek 5128.
Editions: Naples 1474 (Hain *12354); Cologne 1477 (Hain *12355); Venice 1483 (Hain *12356); Venice 1487 (Hain *12537); Lyon 1500 (Hain *12359).
8. Additiones to the Decretals of Gregory IV
Legal historians’ reliance on early modern editions of legal texts has obscured important literary traditions in the Ius commune. Additiones are a significant example of a literary genre that can be known only from a study of the manuscript tradition of a jurist’s works. Although they have been barely studied, jurists had written additiones to their own works and to the works of others since the early thirteenth century[88]. Azo was one of the first. He wrote a large number of additional comments to his Summa super Codice, almost all of which were incorporated into later manuscript and printed editions without any indication that they were added to the original text[89]. During the thirteenth century, additiones and supleciones to glosses and commentaries became a literary genre of increasing importance[90]. Many jurists of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries wrote additiones to their works[91]. Sometimes, but not always, the early modern editions signaled their existence in the printed editions when they incorporated additiones into their texts.
As far as I can determine from the manuscripts that I have examined, Panormitanus wrote additiones to books two and three of his Commentary to the Decretals of Gregory IX. One might presume that he wrote his additiones after ca. 1425-1431 when he seems to have completed his commentary. That conclusion must remain conjectural until all of his manuscripts have been examined. There are almost no datable references in them. I have found one additio in which he referred to an earlier ‘additio’ that he had written to the first part of the book[92]:
et uide ad predicta c.i. de causa pos. et prop. (X.2.12.1) et quod ibi dixi in additione. Nam mihi plus placet ut indistincte ex quo factum non est notorium; sententia principis etiam in subiectum sit nulla absque citatione et cause cognitione.
In this case, the additio that he cited fundamentally changed his earlier commentary. Originally he had written in his commentary on X.2.12.1 that a prince should regularly summon a defendant to court, but if he omitted the summons, his judgment against a person who had not been permitted to conduct a defense remained valid. The prince could condemn a subject without a summons if he had cause; the prince is always presumed to have acted with cause[93]. In an additio Panormitanus changed his mind[94]:
Item citationem et cause cognitionem Deus instituisse uidetur et aperte colligitur ii. q.i. Deus omnipotens (C.2 q.1 c.20), ubi dicitur quod Deus noluit punire peccata Sodomorum nisi descenderet et uideret etc. Nec Adam de suo peccato, nisi prius eum uocasset et defensionem suam audiuisset, ut habetur Gen. iii. et uide quod dico in c. Cum olim, de re iud. (X.2.27.12).
God had to descend from the heavens to judge the Sodomites and Adam and Eve; consequently human judges must adhere to the norms of the ‘ordo iudiciarius’ – just as God had done[95]. His conversion to a defense of due process was not, however, complete. He still thought that in some cases the prince could condemn a subject without a trial[96].
I have located manuscripts without his additiones, with them added to the margins, and with their having been incorporated into the text, as is the case with all the printed editions. The first additio to the introduction of De iudiciis was labelled “prima additio mei Nicolai”. This might indicate the hand of a redactor. A selection of additiones (by no means inclusive) from books two and three are the following:
I. Additio to introduction of De iudiciis (not noted as an additio in the printed text). Venice 1497, vol. 3, fol. 2r: “Et hanc ultimam – in quo iudex iuris reddendi gratia consistit. Et hec est prima additio (diffinitio ed. Venice 1497) mei Nicolai” (Et hec – Nicolai] Additio Nyco. Clm 6536. Clm 5474 has additio; Clm 6536 adds it to the margin; Clm 23685 omits it[97]. Vat. lat. 2551, fol. 1v (marg.)
II. Additio to X.2.1.1, Venice 1497, vol. 3, fol. 3v: “Vel saluando opi. uin. et phi. – uide etiam in hoc quod dixi in c.ii. de dila. Nica.” (Nycol. Clm 5474). Clm 5474 has additio; Clm 6536, 23585 do not.
III. Additio to X.2.1.4, Venice 1497, fol. 12v: “Ad predicta uide in contrarium tex. – que sic potest intelligi”. Clm 5474 has additio; Clm 6536 adds it to the margin.
IV. Additio to X.2.27.20, Venice 1497, vol. 5, fol. 67r: “Potes addere septimum casum ut colligitur quando imminet periculum animarum”. Clm 6537 omits additio.
V. Additio to X.2.27.21, Venice 1497, vol. 5, fol. 68v: “Vide alium casum notabile – impedimento probationis producende”. Clm 6537 omits the additio.
VI. Additio to 3.1.4, Venice 1497, vol. 6, fol. 3v: “In glossa finali in fine. Nota glossam quod quando canon loquitur – de foro compet.”. Clm 6534 and Clm 23686 omit it.
VII. Additio to 3.1.7, Venice 1497, vol. 6, fol. 4r: “Vide etaim per Bar. in l. Servus – in l. Non tantum, ff. de appell.”. Clm 6534, Clm 23686 omit it.
VIII. Additio to 3.1.8, Venice 1497, vol. 6, fol. 4v: “Vsque ibi gl. ii. In glo. i. ibi et c. Diffinimus – Specul. in titl de homi. in princ.”. Clm 6534, Clm 23686 omit it.
IX. Additio to 3.1.15, Venice 1497, vol. 6, fol. 7r (a), 8r (b): a) “Vsque ibi nota in uer. ‘Clausa.’ Tonsura uero fit in parte – et de materia plene in gl. alleg.”. b) “In glos. ‘annulos’ in fine conclude quod monachus – de materia, sed bene tangitur in d.c.iii. xvi q.i.”. Both additiones omitted by Clm 6534 and Clm 23686.
9. Other Works, Spurious and Authentic
Knut Wolfgang Nörr and Charles Lefebvre have attributed a treatise entitled Thesaurus singularium in iure canonico decisivorum to Panormitanus on the basis of its printing in the Venetian edition of his Opera omnia in 1617[98]. Schulte included Flores utriusque iuris based on the edition of Cologne in 1500[99]. Since I am aware of no manuscripts that might support these attributions made by the early modern editors, I think that both works can be assigned to Panormitanus only with great caution. The editions of Lyon 1566 and Venice 1617 also credit Panormitanus with a commentary on the Digest. Again the attribution is likely spurious[100]. Noël Valois signaled a manuscript in Oxford that contains a treatise that Panormitanus composed in Basel during 1433. The text begins[101]:
Infrascripta sunt aliqua dicta nota et memoria digna que ego, Nicolaus Siculus, abbas Moniacensis et in presentiarum Curie apostolice generalis auditor, in scriptis redegi, prout michi studendo ad alium finem occurrebant, adjectique pleraque que prius memoria tenebam. Et incepi ea collegere anno Domini M.CCCC.XXXIII. die vero nona aprilis, dum essem in Almania, seu Germania, in civitate Basiliensi, unus ex oratoribus destinatis per sanctissimum dominum Eugenium papa IV ad reverendissimos dominos cardinales et alios prelatos et magistros et doctores ibidem congregatos causa celebrandi concilium generale.
According to Valois, the tract is a collection of texts dealing with the relationship or conciliar and pontifical power. Much manuscript work remains to be done for all of Panormitanus’ works before we can have a clear picture of exactly what he wrote and the stages of development that his texts went through.