SUMMA. — In the Middle Ages the term “summa” had many meanings: from that of a very extensive encyclopedic compilation (such as the scientific output of St. Albert the Great, William of Auvergne, or Ramon Llull, even though they did not bear the title) to that of modest summaries, like the Summa totius, in which Honorius of Autun (q.v.) sketches a rapid compendium of all ecclesiastical history, or like the Summa of Simon of Hinton, in which the articles of the Creed, the Decalogue, the petitions of the Our Father, the Sacraments, the virtues, the gifts, the Beatitudes, the vices, etc., are successively expounded.
The aims that their authors set for themselves were also quite varied: to provide preachers with sermon material; to furnish notaries with model letters for every contingency; to give jurists summaries of laws; to offer confessors or penitents rules of conduct or solutions to cases of conscience; or a didactic purpose: to present a small synthesis to students in order to encourage them to make use of II. It is in this latter direction that the theological Summae of the 12th and 13th centuries came to be situated, marked by a threefold concern: encyclopedic, synthetic, and didactic.
I. THEOLOGICAL SUMMAE
The Summa of St. Thomas Aquinas, the classic type of this genre in the field of theology, allows us to define its characteristics. Its purpose, as he himself expresses it in the prologue, is to set forth everything that pertains to Catholic doctrine; that is, it intends to treat the entire scientific corpus of “sacra doctrina,” not limiting itself to the study of a single treatise, for example, on the Sacraments or on the Vices. This treatment is conceived and developed by St. Thomas “in a manner adapted to the learned beginnings.” It is, essentially, a work of coordination and scientific reflection, not a mere compilation of the Sentences of the Fathers and ancient writers, as were the deflorationes and the Libri Sententiarum of the preceding centuries; the result is a construction in which all the resources of the intellect operating in the light of faith are employed. Finally, such Summae are genuine syntheses, more or less imposing, that are constructed in the effort to deepen the data of Revelation.The internal structure of theological Summae could vary, for each author had his own personal way of building a synthesis: Abelard, Hugh of St. Victor, and St. Thomas did not adopt the same criterion; the method, technical presentation, divisions, and subdivisions change from author to author, even though the manner of argumentation is identical along the broad lines of Scholastic thought. Yet always identical is the characteristic of theological Summae: the same effort at synthesis, complete exposition, and adaptation.
Contrary to other works of the time and despite the undeniable concern to enter the schools, theological Summae did not become part of the scholastic curriculum. Many works of that period are nothing more than the written record or echo of scholastic activity. Sermons were actually delivered before university students. Commentaries on the Sentences are the fruit of the daily teaching imparted by the bachelor “sententiarius.” Biblical commentaries provided material for the courses of the master of theology; commentaries on Aristotle were generally “read” in the faculty of arts or similar courses; the ordinary disputations, the Quodlibets (q.v.), were actually discussed before being written down.
The Summae stand apart from this scholastic teaching, although some may have been more or less related to II. They are not at all a scholastic exercise; unknown, therefore, to the statutes, they escape any regulation and control. They could, however, be the work of either a bachelor (such as that of Ulrich of Strasbourg) or a master, composed at any point in his professional career: that of St. Thomas was begun in Italy, at Rome and Viterbo, continued in Paris, and completed in Naples. Gerard of Bologna began his Summa after leaving teaching, when he became prior general of the Carmelites. Such Summae do not in any way reflect, in the arrangement of their material or in their composition, the exigencies of the schools. This is especially evident when one compares the Summa with commentaries on the Sentences, which might also aspire to offer a complete picture of Christian doctrine. The bachelor who reads the Sentences is bound to follow a text and to make the relevant commentary. If he deviates too far from it and dwells excessively on certain questions, the regulations call him to order. He expounds the thought of another, even when he makes reservations and additions. He always remains within the framework established by Peter Lombard, even if, personally, he would prefer to make a different synthesis. The author of a Summa, on the other hand, is not bound by these rules: this explains the flourishing of such works during the 13th century.
The transition from the Sentences to the Summae occurred gradually, as commentaries and the personal thought of the author gained ascendancy over the mere collection of patristic texts. The four books of the Sentences of Peter Lombard (q.v.) were a first, successful attempt, which, after the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), enjoyed a reputation certainly not anticipated by the author. After Peter Lombard, Gandulf of Bologna, and then, around 1152–60, Robert of Melun, whose two books, dealing in the first part with the Incarnation, constitute a true Summa. In 1160, the Summa Quoniam homines of Alan of Lille appeared, with its Platonic tone and truly personal approach. Peter of Poitiers, utilizing the work of Lombard, published around 1168–70 his five books of Sententiarum, which in some manuscripts bear the title Summa. About the same time, in 1165, Simon of Tournai wrote his Summa or Institutiones in sacram paginam, whose structure includes, after an introduction De sermone theologica, a first treatise De Deo et divina natura, then De rebus divinis quae sunt ipse Deus, id est de personis; immediately after, De rebus divinis quae sunt a Deo: the angels, man (creation, fall, original sin, virtues); De Christo incarnato pro homine ipso reparando (the Incarnation, the Law, the Decalogue); finally, De Sacramentis Christi per quae fit reparatio hominis.
Soon after, around 1180–90, Master Martin composed his Summa in three parts; he was inspired by those of Simon and Peter of Poitiers (q.v.). Between 1190 and 1197, the Summa de Sacramentis of Peter the Chanter appeared; around the same period (1193–1200), the Speculum universale of Radulf Ardent, and almost immediately after, the Summa of Prevostinus of Cremona, which was added to his Summa de officiis and his Summa contra haereticos. In 1201–1202, Peter of Capua dedicated his Summa to the archbishop of Palermo, Walter. Between 1202 and 1206, the Summa of Bamberg appeared, long attributed to Stephen Langton, which adopts a tripartite division: God and His work; the Incarnation; the Sacraments. Subsequently appeared the Summa of Robert of Courçon (1204–1207), those of William of Auxerre (1215–1220), of Ardennes, of Herbert of Auxerre, all of which explained and summarized the preceding ones. The Summa aurea of William of Auxerre enjoyed notable success; in its four books it treats: De mundo archetypo; De mundo creato; De reparatione peccati; the Incarnation, Redemption, followed by the treatise on the virtues and the Decalogue; finally, De Sacramentis with the Novissima.
From this point onward, if not earlier, theological *Summae* bear almost a kind of desire to escape the framework of Peter Lombard’s *Sentences* and expand into a freer field that was soon imposed upon bachelors and commentators. Despite the title *Quaestiones super libros quatuor Sententiarum*, Cremona (v.), completed in 1232, is far more a *Summa* than a commentary. The same, indeed much more so, can be said of the *Summa de bono* by Chancellor Philip, who constructs his synthesis around the notion of good, both uncreated and created.
After Guiard of Laon and William of Durham (of whom only rare excerpts remain), there immediately followed the *Mysterium divinale* of William of Auvergne (1223–40), the *Summa de creaturis* composed by Albert the Great at the beginning of his scientific activity, before 1246, and, after 1270, at the end of the same period, the *Summa theologica*. The composition of the *Summa universae theologiae* of Alexander of Hales extends, with its ramifications, over a very long period (before 1245–after 1257). After the work of Guido the Elementary, the anonymous *Summa* of Basel (B. IX. 18; c. 1240–51), we arrive at St. Thomas with his great *Summae*: *Summa contra Gentiles*; *Summa theologica*. This work exerted an influence analogous to that previously exercised by Peter Lombard’s *Sentences*: it became the object of study and commentary. Yet the creative current continued. The unfinished *Summa* of Ulrich of Strasbourg was contemporary with that of St. Thomas: composed between 1262 and 1272, this *Summa de bono* was to be divided into 8 books; only the first 6 are known. A little later, COLIVI (v.), with his *Quaestiones super Sententias*, provided the highly developed elements of a theological *Summa*, also left incomplete. The *Summa* of Henry of Ghent, divided into three parts, made extensive use of, and reworked—
*Summae* on the Digest serve only a complementary function compared to those written on the Code. For this reason, the only one preserved seems to be a miscellaneous work, whose literary property is probably shared by Bulgarus, John Bassianus, Azzo, and Ugolino. To John Bassianus is also attributed a *Summa* on the *Authenticum*, updated by Accursius. John Bassianus is probably also the author of a *Summa feudorum*. Certainly, Pillius wrote one, revised by Jacopo Colombi. Most important, however, is the *Summa feudorum* of Jacopo d’Ardizzone. After Accursius, there are not a few other *Summae* on feudal law. The *Summa legis Langobardorum* is not to be attributed to the school of Bologna, but rather to that of Pavia. The famous *Liber pauperum* of Vacarius, written at Oxford for poor students, is rather an excerpt of legal texts with glosses. More properly, some famous works of the French school, which tends particularly toward systematic exposition, should be grouped with the *Summae*: the *Book of Tübingen*, the *Book of Ashburnham*, the *Exceptiones legum Romanarum* of Peter, of which the first two works would be two earlier recensions; all from the first decades of the 12th century. Also to be added are the *Brachylogus* and the *Epitome Exactis Regibus*. In an improper sense, other works are also called *Summae*, e.g., the *Summa contradictionum*, erroneously attributed to William of Cabriano, which belongs to the genre of *Quaestiones legitimae*. This terminology, still fluctuating—as has already been noted—is also evident in works of canon law scholarship.
### III. *Summae* of Dictamen and the Art of Notaries
Closely related to the science of law are the *Summae dictaminis* and those of the *ars notariae*. The former are of a literary-grammatical character, the latter juridical-practical. While the former aim chiefly at stylistic precision and elegance, the latter seek to provide notaries with legally correct formulas for various legal transactions. The *ars notaria* became a true faculty in the universities and gave rise to a series of *Summae*, theoretically well-founded and elaborate. Each region had its own formulary. Rhetoricians and grammarians, in turn, adapted their treatises and formularies to this juridical-practical requirement. Beside the *Summa*, the traditional name *Formularium* still persists.
The founder of these new, scientifically systematic formularies is said to be the one attributed to Irnerius himself. Among the earliest are those of Rainer of Perugia, Bencivenne of Norcia, Salatelle, John, and especially that of Rolandino Passaggerii of Bologna, all from the 13th century. Among the *Summae dictaminis*, special mention should be made of those by Trasimondo from the end of the 12th century, Thomas of Capua, notary and chancellor of Pope Innocent III, Riccardo of Pofi, Berardo of Naples (13th century), and Jacques of Dinant.
### IV. *Summae* of Canon Law
Among canonist glossators as well, the *Summa* develops from “summative” glosses. The aggregate of these individual *Summae* constitutes a work called a *Summa*. However, the commentators on Gratian’s *Decretum* (decretists) developed this literary genre in specific forms that clearly demonstrate an autonomous evolution: for them too, the *Summa* constitutes a systematic compendium of legal-doctrinal material that generally follows the order of the source and is written for didactic purposes. Yet in not a few works of this kind, after the concise systematic exposition, an exegetical commentary is added on individual words or passages of the law, so that, in essence, one is confronted with a true *Apparatus*, i.e., a coherent collection of exegetical glosses on the legal text. It differs only in that it was not originally written and published with the legal text but separated from II. For this reason, it is not easy to distinguish between an *Apparatus* and such a *Summa*, which is therefore called, for this reason, a *Summa* in the manner of an *Apparatus* or a *Summa mixta*. The only criterion of distinction remains the external one of tradition (always without the legal text).
The rich production of *Summae* in decretal scholarship should be catalogued by schools. First among these is the school of Bologna, which, besides some anonymous works, has a series of *Summae* written by well-known decretists: the *Summae mixtae* of Paucapalea (ed. Schulte 1890), Rufinus (ed. Singer 1902), Stephen of Tournai (partially ed. Schulte 1891), John of Faenza, Simon of Bisignano; the largest and most complete of all PISANDI (v.), written around 1190. The last of these Bolognese *Summae* from the second half of the 12th century is the so-called *Reginensis* (by Peter of Benevento?). Practically the only purely systematic-synthetic *Summa* is that of Roland Bandinelli (Alexander III, ed. Thaler 1874).
There also flourished in Paris a school of decretal study that was very productive of *Summae*; since most of its authors were unknown, their works are distinguished either by their incipits or by the place of compilation or by the location of the unique or earliest manuscript. Among the smaller and fragmentary productions one should note the *Summae tantum*: *Elegantius in iure divino* (Coloniensis), *Imperatoriae maiestatis* (Monacensis), and the *Summa* of Sicard of Cremona, which, quite rightly according to the most recent scholarship (St. Kuttner, in *Mélanges Joseph de Ghellinck*, S. J., II, Gembloux 1951, pp. 783 ff.), should rather be attributed to the French school than to the Bolognese. The *Summula decretalium quaestionum* of Evrardus Yprensis is a combination of *Summa* and *Quaestiones*. Of *Summae* in the form of apparatus one has *Magister Gratianus in hoc opere* (Parisiensis), *Tractaturus Magister*, *Permissio quaedam*, *Reverentia sacrorum canonum*, *Et est sciendum* (Glossae Stuttgartenses), all from the second half of the 12th century. The greatest of these, *Animal est substantia* (Bambergensis), already belongs to the beginning of the 13th century. The Anglo-Norman school produced, also in the 12th century, *Omnis qui iuste* (Lipsiensis) along with its related works: *De iure canonico* and *In nomine*, all of mixed type. There are also the purely systematic works: *De multiplici iuris divisione* and *Prima primi uxor*. The *Decreta minora* of Odo of Dover summarize both the Decree and its commentary.
The decretalists, that is, the commentators on the collections of papal decretals, no longer compose, except in very rare cases, *Summae mixtae*, but only systematic works which, like those of their colleagues among the legists, are called *Summae titulorum* and are intended as textbooks systematically expounding the legal and doctrinal material according to the titles of the collections. The prototype of these *Summae titulorum* is that of Bernard of Pavia at the end of the 12th century. Besides some anonymous works, mention should be made of the *Summae* of Ambrosius and of Damasus Ungarus, written between 1210 and 1215. To the Decretals of Gregory IX there are attributed the *Summa* of John of Petesella of Compostela, above all Geoffrey of Trani (much cited), Bernard of Parma de Botone, Henry of Merseburg, and Baldwin of Brandenburg.
A *Summa* of a special kind is the famous *Summa aurea* of Henry of Susa (v. BARTOLOMITI, Enrico). In 13th-century classical canonistics there are also *Summae* that combine in a concise exposition all the legal material of the Decree and the Decretals in a free systematic order. These are sometimes called, more precisely, *Specula iuris*. Besides the metrical *Summa*, called *Iuris Ysagoge* from the beginning of the 13th century, one should note here the incomplete work of the young Raymond of Peñafort (c. 1221), the *Summa iuris* which he intended to treat the whole of law in seven books, of which only the first two survive in a single manuscript, probably the only ones he completed. Towards the end of the 13th century there was composed in England the *Summa Summarium*, which in the same title of the book is also called *Speculum* and *Repertorium*. Another type of *Summa* is constituted by the *Summae quaestionum*, which, originating in the French and Anglo-Norman schools—probably from Richard Anglicus (de Mores)—were also brought to Bologna at the end of the 12th century. They combine *Summae* and *Quaestiones* in that, after the summarizing gloss on each title, a series of respective cases is discussed. Principal among these are the *Summa Quaestionum* of Magister Honorius, an Englishman, and that of Richardus Anglicus.
There are also monographic *Summae*, that is, works that systematically treat a specific subject and for this reason might better be called treatises, as is the case with similar works among the legists. They deal especially with marriage and legal procedure.
Among the *Summae de matrimonio* one should note those of Bernard of Pavia, Tancred, St. Raymond of Peñafort (second redaction of the preceding), Robert Flamborough, and John Andrea, though the latter follows Book VI of Boniface VIII. Far more numerous are the *Summae de ordine iudiciario*, commonly called *Ordines iudiciarii*, which, because of the evident connection between the two fields, treat both civil and canon law and doctrine. Among the many works of this kind (some anonymous), special mention should be made of those by Richard Anglicus, Tancred, Roffredo of Benevento, William of Drogheda, Bonagratia of Arezzo, Martin of Fano, Giles Foscarari, and in particular the so-called *Speculum iuris* of William Durand. There are also *Summae* on other subjects such as, for example, *de electione*, *de excommunicatione*, etc.
V. «Summae» CASUUM etc. — Special treatment is deserved by the *Summae casuum*, *de casibus conscientiae*, *de confessione*, *confessorum*, *de poenitentia*. In themselves they are juridical, but since they are directed for use in the internal forum of confession and do not exclude dogmatic and moral doctrine in the strict sense, they partake of both sectors.
Strictly speaking, one can distinguish the *Summae de poenitentia* from the *Summae confessorum* or *de casibus conscientiae*. But the terminology itself does not make a clear distinction: St. Raymond, for example, also calls his *Summa de casibus* a *Summa de poenitentia*. In these works the legal, doctrinal, and canonistic material necessary for the minister of private penance is systematically gathered. Each work presents in more or less concise form the *Summa*, that is, a summary of the respective subject, then adduces and resolves practical cases, and adds to the systematic treatment the casuistry so desirable and useful in matters of penance. The order is generally logical-systematic, sometimes even alphabetical.
The first *Summa confessorum*, also called a *Poenitentiale*, is the one written between 1208 and 1210 by Robert of Flamborough, in five books. After the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), the following Summae were read: those of St. Thomas of Chabham, the two Dominicans Paul Ungarus and Conrad of Hoexter, John of Kent, and Peter of Poitiers. All of these were surpassed by the famous *Summa de casibus* of St. Raymond of Peñafort, divided into three books written between 1227 and 1234, to which he added, in the following two years, as Book IV, the *De matrimonio*. The *Summa* had glosses and abbreviations (among which the *Summa pauperum* or *Summula de Summa* by Adam the German), which demonstrate the great use that was made of II. The Franciscan Monaldus wrote before 1217 the *Summa Monaldina*, the first alphabetical one; between 1280 and 1298 the Dominican John of Freiburg wrote the *Summa Joannina*, which also had an abbreviation and a German translation. At the same time, the Franciscan John of Saxony (Erfordensis) wrote, and around 1311, Albert of Brescia O.P. In the 14th century, the following emerged: the *Summa Astesana* divided into eight books (title 32 of Book V contains a well-known collection of penitential canons) by Astesanus O.F.M., an anonymous *Summa rudium* for less educated priests, the *Summa Pisana* (*Magistratus, Pisanaella*) by Bartholomew of San Concordio O.P., which in 1444 received a supplement by Nicholas of Osimo O.F.M. Around the year 1486, A. Carletus of Chivasso wrote the famous *Summa Angelica*, and in 1483 Baptista de Salis (Trovalma) O.F.M. the first redaction of the *Summa Baptistina* or *Rosella*, in alphabetical order, which was later expanded in a second redaction. At the beginning of the 16th century, John Cagnazzo of Tabia composed the *Summa Tabiena*, and Sylvester Frerius (Mazzolino) O.P. the *Summa Sylvestrina* or *Summa Summarum*, arranged in alphabetical order. — See plate LXIII.
Alfonso M. Stickler