¹ For MSS of the Faventinus Summa Decreti cf. Kuttner, Repertorium der Kanonistik 143–5. Google Scholar

² The impress of the Vatican Library stamp appears unfortunately in the dead centre of the initial P. Google Scholar

³ I am much indebted to Miss Anneliese Maier for help with this MS. Prof. Buchthal, who also kindly examined it at her request, is of the opinion that the hand is Italian; but the known history of the MS strongly suggests that it is of English origin. Google Scholar

⁴ He is no doubt identical with the Austin friar, John de Brocklesey or Broklesby, who received faculties in the diocese of Lincoln on 26 Feb. 1337; cf. Copeland, J. L., Relations between the Secular Clergy and the Mendicant Friars in England during the Century after the Issue of the Bull ‘Super Cathedram’ (1300) (London Thesis, University M. A. 1937) appendix Brocklesey, s.v. Google Scholar

⁵ The inscription is printed in Mercati, G., Codices latini Pico Grimani Pio (Studi e Testi 75; Città del Vaticano 1938) 124.Google Scholar

⁶ Cf. ibid., where ‘h-goline’ should read ‘h-golnie,’ which may be expanded as ‘huntingolnie’ — a not unusual latin form of the place-name, Huntingdon; cf. Analecta Augustiniana 4 (1911) 430 n. 2. On fol. 288^r of the MS is a note: ‘Memorandum est quando fratres debent habere ff … s (Floccos?). videlicet. In die pasche … Et in die trinitatis. debent fratres in his diebus suprascriptis habere ff … s pro generali.’ Google Scholar

⁷ Cf. Mercati, , op. cit. 124; Bannister, H. M. ‘A Short Notice of Some Manuscripts of the Cambridge Friars, now in the Vatican Library’ British Society of Franciscan Studies 5 (1914) 125. The Augustinian friary of Huntingdon was suppressed in 1539; cf. Knowles, D. and Hadcock, N. R., Medieval Religious Houses: England and Wales (London 1953) 201.Google Scholar

⁸ Mercati, , op. cit. 108; Bannister, loc. cit. Google Scholar

⁹ Mercati, , op. cit. 111. ¹⁰ Ibid. 106ff., 124.Google Scholar

¹¹ I have compared the fragment with the three Rome MSS of Johannes Faventinus, Vat. Borgh. 71, 162 and Reg. 1061. Both Vat. Borgh. 71 and Reg. 1061 have the text (and more) of that in Vat. lat. 4954. On the other hand, Vat. Borgh. 162 lacks D.1–46 and part of D.47 of the Summa Decreti. I can state definitely, however, that the two leaves in Vat lat. 4954 are not from Vat. Borgh. 162. Google Scholar

¹² Though personally I should favor a date c. 1250 for the text of Johannes Faventinus, Dr. Maier is no doubt right that the hand is saec. xiii ex. Google Scholar

¹³ Both leaves have been pared; but the text on fol. i is intact and the lower margin has also been preserved, though the text at this point is somewhat difficult to read owing to the binding. There is in addition a crease across the folio, and some slight stains mar the parchment. The upper and lower margins of fol. ii have been severely treated, and two large stains, which are particularly opaque on fol. ii^vb, have made part of the text almost illegible. Google Scholar

¹⁴ It should be pointed out that in Vat. Borgh. 71 fols. 23–30 are misplaced. The quire containing these folios should come immediately after fol. 16^v, and fols. 17–22 after fol. 30^v, Google Scholar

¹⁶ In Vat. Borgh. 71 the text of D.4 ends with ‘furore ipso.’ It is possible then that in Vat. lat. 4954 D.4 is incomplete. Google Scholar