Summae

SUMMAE. - The term "Summa" had numerous meanings in the Middle Ages: from that of a very vast encyclopedic compilation (such might be called the scientific output of St. Albert the Great, of William of Auvergne or of Raymond Lull, even if it does not bear the name) to that of modest summaries, such as the Summa totius, in which Honorius of Autun (v.) traces a rapid compendium of all ecclesiastical history, or such as the S. of Simon of Hinton, in which are successively set forth the articles of the Creed, the Decalogue, the petitions of the Pater, the Sacraments, the virtues, the gifts, the beatitudes, the vices, etc.

The purpose that their authors proposed to themselves was also quite varied: to give preachers material for sermons; to notaries models of letters for every eventuality; to jurists summaries of laws; to confessors or penitents rules of conduct or solutions to cases of conscience; a didactic purpose: to present a small synthesis to students so as to encourage them to make use of it. It is in this last direction that the theological S. came to be placed, in the 12th and 13th centuries, marked by the threefold concern of being encyclopedic, synthetic, and didactic.

I. THEOLOGICAL SUMMAE

The Summa of St. Thomas, the classic type of such production in the field of theology, allows us to fix its characteristics. Its intent, as he expresses it in the prologue, is to set forth everything that pertains to Catholic doctrine; that is, it intends to treat the scientific whole of "sacred doctrine," and therefore is not limited to the study of a single treatise, for example, of the De Sacramentis or the De vitiis. This treatment is conceived and carried out by St. Thomas "eo modo tradere secundum quod congruit ad eruditionem incipientium." It is, substantially, a work of coordination and scientific rethinking, not a simple compilation of Sententiae 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 intelligence operating in the light of faith are utilized. Such Summae are, finally, true syntheses more or less imposing, which are built up in the effort to deepen the data of Revelation.

The internal schema of the theological Summae could undergo variations, because each had his own personal way of constructing a synthesis: Abelard, Hugh of St. Victor, St. Thomas did not adopt the same criterion; the method, the technical presentation, the divisions and subdivisions change from author to author, even if the manner of arguing is identical, according to the broad lines of scholastic thought. Always identical, however, is the characteristic of the theological Summae: the same effort of synthesis, of complete exposition, of adaptation.

Contrary to other works of the time and despite the undeniable concern to enter the school, the theological Summae did not enter the scholastic cycle. Many works of that time are nothing but the redaction or the echo of scholastic activity. The sermons were really delivered before university students. The commentaries on the "Sentences" are the fruit of the teaching imparted day by day by the bachelor "sententiarius." The biblical commentaries provide material for the courses of the master of theology; the commentaries on Aristotle were generally "read" in the faculty of arts or in similar courses; the ordinary disputations, the Quodlibeta (v.) were really discussed before being written.

The Summae are on the margin of this scholastic teaching, although some may have been more or less connected with it. They are not at all a scholastic exercise; unknown, therefore, to the Statutes, they escape any regulation and control. They can, however, be the work both of the bachelor (like that of Ulrich of Strasbourg) and of the master, drafted at any moment of the professional career: that of St. Thomas was begun in Italy, at Rome and Viterbo, continued at Paris, finished at Naples. Gerard of Bologna began his Summa after having left teaching, when he became prior general of the Carmelites. Such Summae are not at all affected, in the distribution of the material or in their drafting, by scholastic requirements. This appears especially when one compares the Summa and the commentaries on the Sentences, which could also aspire to offer a complete picture of Christian doctrine. The bachelor who lectures on the "Sentences" is bound to follow a text and to make the relevant comments on it. If he departs from it a little too much and dwells excessively on certain questions, the regulations call him back to order. He sets forth the thought of another, even when he makes reservations and additions. He always remains within the framework fixed 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 laws: this explains the flourishing of such works during the 13th century.

The passage from the "Sentences" to the Summae occurred gradually, as the commentaries and the author's personal thought imposed themselves over the simple collection of patristic texts. The four books of the "Sentences" of Peter Lombard (v.) were a first highly successful attempt, which, after the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), enjoyed a fame certainly not suspected by the author. After Peter Lombard, Gandulph of Bologna, then, around 1152-60, Robert of Melun, whose two books, which treat in the first part of the Incarnation, constitute a true Summa. In 1160 appeared the Summa Quoniam homines of Alan of Lille, with its Platonic tinge and with truly personal attitudes. Peter of Poitiers, using the work of the Lombard, published around 1168-70 his Sententiarum libri quinque, which bear in certain manuscripts the title of Summa. Around the same period, 1165, Simon of Tournai wrote his Summa or Institutiones in sacram paginam, whose schema comprises, after an introduction De termone theologico, 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.

Immediately afterward, around 1180-90, Master Martin drafted his Summa in three parts; it is inspired by those of Simon and of Peter of Poitiers (v.). Between 1190 and 1197 came the Summa de Sacramentis of Peter the Chanter; around the same period (1193-1200) the Speculum universale of Radulphus Ardens and, almost immediately after, the Summa of Prevostin of Cremona, which comes to be 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. There appeared, between 1202 and 1206, the Summa of Bamberg, for a long time attributed to Stephen Langton, which adopts the tripartite division: God and his work; the Incarnation; the Sacraments. There appeared successively the Summa of Robert of Courçon (1204-1207), that of William of Auxerre (1215-20), of Ardengus, of Herbert of Auxerre, which both explained and summarized the preceding one. The Summa aurea of William of Auxerre had a notable success: in its four books it treats: De mundo archetypo; De mundo creato; De reparatione peccati: Incarnation, Redemption, followed by the treatise on the virtues and the decalogue: lastly, De Sacramentis with the Novissimi.

From this moment, if not earlier, theological S. bear the imprint of, as it were, a kind of desire to escape the schema of Peter Lombard's "Sentences" and to range over a freer field, which was soon afterward imposed upon the bachelors and the commentators. Despite the title Quaestiones super libros quatuor Sententiarum, the work of Roland of Cremona (v.), completed in 1232, is much more a S. than a commentary. The same, indeed much more, can be said regarding the Summa de bono of Chancellor Philip, who constructs his synthesis around the notion of the good, uncreated and created. After Guiard of Laon and William of Durham (of whose works only rare extracts 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 that same activity, the Summa theologica. The composition of the Summa universae theologiae of Alexander of Hales drags on, with its ramifications, over a very long period (before 1245 - after 1257). After the work of Guido the Almoner, the anonymous S. of Basel (B. IX. 18; around 1240-51), one comes to St. Thomas with his great S.: Summa contra Gentiles; Summa theologiae. This work exercised an influence analogous to that which Peter Lombard's Sentences had previously exercised: it became the object of study and commentary. But the creative current continues. The unfinished S. 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, Olivi (v.), with his Quaestiones super Sententias, set out the highly developed elements of a theological S. that likewise remained unfinished. The S. of Henry of Ghent, divided into three parts, made extensive use, reworking them, of his disputed questions; by 1280 it was already for the most part composed. With Gerard of Bologna, one enters the 14th century. His Summa theologiae was drafted between 1313 and 1317; it draws inspiration both from Henry of Ghent and from St. Thomas Aquinas. The S. of Nicholas of Strasbourg (before 1323), like the anonymous Summa de bono (cod. Vat. lat. 4305), draws chiefly upon St. Thomas and St. Albert the Great. Then the vein dried up; the great period of scholasticism came to a close; afterward theologians devoted themselves above all to commentaries or to more limited works. Only a few S. (9 out of 23) are currently published.

Palemone Glorieux

II. SOMME OF ROMAN LAW

Before the scientific activity of the glossators, "Summa" simply meant a summary of legal material, mostly with regard to specific fields, but the tendency to summarize was soon joined by that of systematizing both the legal material and the doctrine.

The Summa as a literary genre is born from the "summarizing glosses," that is, from the explanations that summarize the content of a law. When this explanation summarizes and orders the material contained in one or more titles of the Corpus Iuris, one has a summa tituli or summa titulorum. If these extend to all the titles of one part of the Corpus Iuris, for example, of the Code, one is already faced with a Summa properly so called. It should be noted, however, that until the second half of the 12th century the Summa of a title is still considered an independent unit, and one therefore speaks, for example, of Summae Codicis. Only from then on does the very designation of Summae also imply that the work is already conceived as a uniform literary genre which, however, still always respects the order and autonomy of the individual titles, which are joined together through the so-called continuationes titulorum. The systematization, fundamentally partial, becomes general in that the Summae of the Code also adduce in the respective places the material of the other parts of the Corpus Iuris.

The systematizing glosses of a title or of a part of it are also called Summulae, if written and handed down as works standing on their own that treat particular points or questions, or particularly interesting and useful ones. They could be compared to modern monographs; for this reason they were called, until the most recent times, indiscriminately also tractatus, that is to say, truly systematic monographs.

The first Summulae must be attributed to Bulgarus (1166). Today four of them are known (De regula Catoniana = D. 34, 7; De stipulationibus = D. 45, 1, 83, 2; De dolo = D. 4, 3, 7; De iuris et facti ignorantia = C. 1, 18). Then follows Hugo with the De petitione hereditatis (C. 3, 31). The first Summa in the strict sense, that is, on the Code, is by Rogerius of Piacenza: a first recension goes under the name of Summa Trecensis, which was made around the middle of the 12th century at Bologna. It is the source of a Summa with a practical-popular purpose, called La Codi, written in Provençal and then translated into French, Castilian, Catalan, and Latin. The second recension reaches only C. 4, 57 and had, in the Summa Tubingensis, an anonymous continuator. Placentinus (v.) wrote, in two stages, the second Summa on the Code. The third is by Johannes Bassianus (lost). Azo, his pupil, revised it and then wrote his own Summa on the Code, so complete and perfect that it remained a schoolbook until the 17th century. The last three books of the Code, considered by the school a collection standing on its own, also have their respective Summae. Placentinus (v.) made an incomplete one, which was continued by Pillius down to C. 11, 62.

Alongside the Summae Codicis, the Summae Institutionum soon arose. After an anonymous one that came out of the school of Bulgarus, those handed down to us are that of Placentinus, one probably by Johannes Bassianus, and the great one of Azo, which stands worthily beside his Summa Codicis.

The Summae on the Digest have only a complementary function compared with those written on the Code. For this reason the only one preserved seems to be a miscellaneous work, whose literary ownership is probably divided among Bulgarus, Johannes Bassianus, Azo, and Ugolinus. To Johannes Bassianus is also attributed a Summa on the Authenticum, updated by Accursius. Johannes Bassianus is probably also the author of a Summa feudorum. One was certainly written by Pillius, revised by Jacobus Colombi. Especially important is the Summa feudorum of Jacobus de Ardizzone. After Accursius there are not a few other Summae of 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 extract of legal texts with glosses. With greater right some famous works of the French school, which tends in particular toward systematic exposition, are to be brought close to the Summae, such as the Book of Tübingen, the Book of Ashburnham, the Exceptions legum Romanarum Petri, of which the first two works would be two earlier recensions; all from the first decades of the 12th century. To these should be added the Brachylogus and the Epitome Exactis regibus. In an improper sense other works too are called Summae, for example, the Summa contradictionum, erroneously attributed to Guglielmo da Cabriano, which belongs to the genus of the Quaestiones legitimae. This still fluctuating terminology, which has already been mentioned, is still noticeable in the works of the science of canon law.

III. SUMMAE "DICTAMINIS ET ARTIS NOTARIAE"

The Summae dictaminis and those artis notariae come close to the science of law. The former are of a literary-grammatical character, the latter juridical-practical. While the former have as their principal aim the accuracy and beauty of style, the latter intend to provide notaries with the juridically correct formulas for the various legal transactions. The ars notaria became a true faculty in the Universities and aroused a series of Summae, theoretically well founded and elaborated. Every region had its own formulary. The rhetoricians and grammarians in turn adapted their formulary treatises to this juridical-practical requirement. Alongside the Summa there still remains the traditional name of Formularium.

The head and founder of these new formularies, of a scientific-systematic type, is said to be the one attributed to Irnerius himself. Among the first are those of Ranieri da Perugia, of Bencivenni da Norcia, of Salatiele, of Giovanni and especially that of Rolandino Passagerii da Bologna, all of the 13th century. Among the Summae dictaminis, those of Trasamundo of the end of the 12th century, of Tommaso da Capua, notary and chancellor of Pope Innocent III, of Riccardo di Pofi, of Berardo di Napoli of the 13th century, and of Jacques di Dinant deserve a special mention.

IV. SOMME OF CANON LAW

Among the canonist glossators too the Summa develops out of "summarizing" glosses. The body of these individual Summae constitutes a work called a Summa. The commentators on Gratian's Decree (decretists), however, in contrast to the legists, develop this literary genre in specific forms that clearly demonstrate its autonomous evolution: for them too the Summa constitutes a systematic compendium of the legal and doctrinal material which generally follows the order of the source and is written for didactic purposes; but in not a few works of this kind, after the compendious-systematic exposition, an exegetical commentary is added on the individual words or passages of the law, so that, substantially, one is faced with a true Apparatus, that is, with a coherent body of exegetical glosses on the legal text. It is distinguished from the latter only by the fact that it was not originally written and published together with the legal text, but separately from it. For this reason it is not easy to distinguish between an Apparatus and a Summa of this kind, which is called, on that account, a Summa in the manner of an Apparatus or Summa mixta. The only criterion of distinction remains the external one of tradition (always without the legal text).

The rich production of Summae in decretist scholarship must be catalogued according to schools. First among all is that of Bologna, which, besides some anonymous ones, has a series of Summae written by well-known decretists: the Summae mixtae of Paucapalea (ed. Schulte 1890), of Rufinus (ed. Singer 1902), of Stephen of Tournai (partial ed. Schulte 1891), of John of Faenza, of Simon of Bisignano; the largest and most complete of all is that of Uguccione of Pisa (v.) written around 1190. The last of these Bolognese Summae of the second half of the 12th century is the so-called Regimensis (by Peter of Benevento?). A Summa tantum, or a purely systematic-synthetic Summa, is practically only the Summa of Roland Bandinelli (Alexander III, ed. Thaner 1874).

A decretist school also flourished at Paris, very fertile in Summae; since for the most part the authors are unknown, they are distinguished according to their Incipit or according to the place of compilation or of preservation of the single manuscript or of the first one found. Among the other minor and fragmentary ones, note should be taken of the Summae tantum: Elegantius in iure divina (Coloniensis), Imperatoriae maiestatis (Monocensis), the Summa of Sicard of Cremona which, rightly, according to very recent positions (St. Kuttner, in Melanges Joseph de Ghellinck. S. J., II, Gembloux 1951, p. 783 ff.) must be attributed rather to the French school than to the Bolognese one. The Summula decretalium quaestionum of Evrardus Vprensis is a combination of Summa and Quaestiones. Of Summae in the manner of an apparatus there are the Magister Gratianus in hoc opere (Parisiensis), the Tractatus Magister, the Permissio quaedam, the Reverentia sucrorum canonum, the Et est sciendum (Glossae Stuttgartiensis), all of the second half of the 12th century. The largest: Animal est substantia (Bambergensis) is already from the beginning of the 13th century. The Anglo-Norman school produced, again in the 12th century, the Omnis qui iuste (Lipsiensis) with the connected De iure canonico and In nomine, all of the mixed type. Furthermore the purely systematic ones: De multiplici iuris divisione, and the Prima primi uxor. The Decreta minora of Odo of Dover summarize the Decree and the commentary at the same time.

The decretalists, that is, the commentators on the collections of papal Decretals, no longer compose, except for some very rare exception, Summae mixtae, but only systematic ones which are called, like those of their legist colleagues, Summae titulorum and are meant to be didactic books that systematically expound the legal and doctrinal material, following the titles of the collections. The prototype of these Summae titulorum is that of Bernard of Pavia from the end of the 12th century. Besides some anonymous ones, note should be taken of the Summa of Ambrose and of Damasus Hungarus, written between 1210 and 1215. On the Decretals of Gregory IX, Summae were composed by John of Petesella Compostellanus, above all by Godfrey of Trani (much cited), Bernard of Parma de Botone, Henry of Merseburg and Baldwin of Brandenburg.

A Summa of a particular kind is the famous Summa aurea of Henry of Susa (v. BARTOLOMEI, ENRICO). There are then, in the classical canonistics of the 13th century, Summae that unite in a compendious exposition all the legal material of the Decree and of the Decretals in a free systematic order. They are sometimes called, more precisely, Specula iuris. Besides the metrical Summa, called Iuris Ysagoge, from the beginning of the 13th century, mention should be made here of the incomplete work of the young Raymond of Peñafort (ca. 1221), the Summa iuris, which intended to treat all of law in seven books, of which only the first two survive, in a single manuscript that has been preserved, probably the only ones elaborated. Toward the end of the 13th century the Summa Summarum was composed in England, which is called, in the very title of the book, also Speculum and Repertorium. Another kind of Summa is constituted by the Summae quaestionum, which, born in the French and Anglo-Norman school, probably from Richardus Anglicus (de Mores), were also brought to Bologna at the end of the 12th century. They unite Summae and Quaestiones in that, after the summarizing gloss of each title, a series of respective cases is discussed. Note should be taken principally of the Summa Quaestionum of Magister Honorius, an Englishman, and that of Richardus Anglicus.

There are also the monographic Summae, that is, those that treat a determined subject in systematic form and that, for this reason, would better be called treatises, like the respective works among the legists. They concern above all marriage and trials.

Among the Summae de matrimonio note should be taken of that of Bernard of Pavia, of Tancred, of St. Raymond of Peñafort (second redaction of the preceding), of Robert Flamesburgensis, of John Andrew, which however follows book VI of Boniface VIII. Much more numerous are the Summae de ordine iudiciario, also more commonly called Ordines iudiciarii, which, because of the evident connection of the two fields, treat civil and canon laws and doctrines. Among the many works of this kind (some anonymous), special mention is deserved by that of Richardus Anglicus, of Tancred, of Roffredus Beneventanus, William de Drogheda, Bonaguida of Arezzo, Martin of Fano, Giles Foscarari, and in particular the so-called Speculum iuris of William Durantis. There is no lack of Summae on other subjects, as, for example, de electione, de excommunicatione, etc.

V. «SUMMAE» CASUUM etc

The Summae casuum, de casibus conscientiae, de confessione, confessorum, de poenitentia deserve special treatment. In themselves they are juridical, but because they are directed to use in the internal forum in confession and do not exclude dogmatic and moral doctrine in the strict sense, they participate in both sectors.

Strictly speaking, the Summae de poenitentia can be distinguished from the Summae confessorum, or de casibus conscientiae. But the terminology itself does not distinguish them clearly: St. Raymond, for example, also calls his Summa de casibus a Summa de poenitentia. In these, all the legal, doctrinal and canonistic material necessary to the minister of private penance is systematically gathered together. In all of them the S. — that is, the summary of the respective subject matter — is set out in a more or less concise form; then practical cases are adduced and resolved, and to the systematic treatment is added the casuistry so much desired and so useful in matters of penance. The order is generally logical-systematic, sometimes also alphabetical.

The first Summa confessorum, also called Poenitentia, is the one written between 1208 and 1210 by Robert of Flamborough, in 5 books. After the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) there follow the Ss. of Thomas of Chobham, of the two Dominicans Paul the Hungarian and Conrad of Höxter, of John of Kent and Peter of Poitiers. All of these are surpassed by the famous Summa de casibus of St. Raymond of Peñafort, divided into 3 books written between 1227 and 1234, to which, in the two following years, he added, as book IV, the de matrimonio. The Summa had glosses and abbreviations (among them the Summa pauperum or Summa de Summa, by Adam the Teuton), which demonstrate the great use that everyone made of it. 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 translation into German. At the same time the Franciscan John of Saxony (Erfurdensis) wrote, and, around 1311, Albert of Brescia O. P. In the 14th century there emerge the Summa Astesana, divided into 8 books (title 32 of book V contains a collection of penitential canons that is quite well known) by Astesanus O. F. M., an anonymous Summa rudium for less educated priests, the Summa Pisana (Magistrutia, Pisanella) of Bartholomew of San Concordio O. P., which had, in 1444, a supplement by the work of Nicholas of Osimo O. F. M. Around the year 1486 A. Carleto of Chivasso wrote the famous Summa Angelica, and in 1483 Baptista de Salis (Trovamala) O. F. M. wrote the first redaction of the Summa Baptissima or Rosella, in alphabetical order, which he later enlarged in a second redaction. At the beginning of the 16th century Giovanni Cagnazzo of Tabia composed the Summa Tabiana, and Silvestro Prierias (Mazzolino) O. P. the Summa Sylvestrina or Summa Summarum, arranged in alphabetical order. - See plate LXIII.

Alfonso M. Stickler