The short canonical tract entitled De ratione matrimonii, dating to the late eighth or early ninth century, offers straightforward rules on marriage drawn from a variety of authoritative texts. Its enduring appeal is evinced by the survival of at least twenty-three manuscript witnesses from the early ninth to the twelfth century, uninfluenced by important developments regarding marriage within Christian society during that period. Despite its potential to shed light on fundamental thoughts on the topic of marriage within Christian society between the eighth and twelfth centuries, this short tract has escaped the close attention of modern scholars. This article, due to be published in Traditio 81 (2026), presents the tract, describes its context and character and provides its first critical edition with an English translation. An examination of the text reveals its dependence on a peculiar version of the Irish Collectio canonum Hibernensis, offering insights into the development of this important early medieval canonical collection. In addition, the tract is a rare example of a set of pragmatic guidelines for early medieval societies, through its focus on practical rather than doctrinal norms about starting, living in, and ending a marriage. The study of the mostly fragmentary witnesses to the text not only sheds light on medieval concerns about rightful marriage but also reveals the conscious editorial choices made by individual scholars and copyists throughout this period.
Category: Collections
This page presents the team’s blog posts as they study early medieval canonical collections.
In the shadow of the 2026 International Medieval Congress at Leeds, Gideon’s latest article was published in The Legal History Review (a.k.a. Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis / Revue d’histoire du droit). It is a rare example of an essay about a crucial step in any research process: assessing the background of received wisdom. In this case, the assumption is that the text of CJ 1,4,7, a law on episcopal adjudication, was issued by Arcadius as part of a larger legislative action on the 27th of July AD 398 at Mnizus. Gideon’s article establishes that this is exactly that: an assumption. Through an exploration of the (lacking) manuscript evidence and earlier humanist editions of the Code, notably that of Gregorius Haloander, this article stresses both the place Mnizus and promulgation by Arcadius are in fact assumptions, without extant direct evidence. Similarly, Krüger’s claim that CJ 1,4,7 was also part of the Theodosian Code lacks direct evidence. It is a welcome reminder to all working with historical evidence mediated through (much) older scholarship.
Gideon de Jong, ‘Did Arcadius legislate on episcopalis audientia? And was that legislation included in the Theodosian Code?’, Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis / Revue d’histoire du droit / The Legal History Review 94(1-2) (2026), pp. 138-181. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718190-20260110
Gideon de Jong (team member of both SOLEMNE and Anchoring Innovation) has just published an article, tackling one of the most vexing questions of historical research into canon law: is canon law ‘law’? Harnessing his legal knowledge and historical skills, Gideon studies the Irish Collectio canonum Hibernensis, which is generally called canon law and which itself (in some manuscripts) includes a theoretical reflection on the definition of law. Scholars have questioned the extent to which early medieval canon law, and specifically this collection, conforms to law in a meaningful sense. Inspired by H. L. A. Hart’s concept of law, seminal in contemporary legal theory, Gideon’s article argues that laws can be understood only from a participant perspective or ‘internal point of view’. The way the words ius, lex, and canon are used throughout the collection points to the presence of this perspective. The article thus makes the case for treating the Hibernensis as canon law.
Thanks to funding from Anchoring Innovation, the article in Peritia is fully Open Access and can be found here.
Gideon de Jong, ‘”Law is Said in Many Ways”: An Attempt at Conceptual Clarification of Canon Law in the Collectio canonum Hibernensis’, Peritia 36 (2025), 71-97. https://doi.org/10.1484/J.PERIT.5.153301
The last seven folios of Vesoul, Bibliothèque municipal, MS 73 (79) contain an intriguing canonical florilegium, which derives from the late eighth- or early ninth-century Collectio canonum Sangermanensis. The Florilegium Vesulensium(Flor.Ves.) is thereby one of several (partial) reworkings and extracts of the Collectio canonum Sangermansis—itself highly dependent on the Hibernensis.1Roger E Reynolds, ‘Unity and diversity in Carolingian canon law collections: the case of the Collectio Hibernensis and its derivatives’, in: U.-R. Blumenthal (ed.), Carolingian essays: Andrew W. Mellon lectures in early Christian Studies (Washington, DC, 1983), pp. 99–135, at 119-23. Internal evidence demonstrates that the immediate exemplar for the Flor.Ves. was the Sangermanensis as it survives in Paris, BnF lat. 12444. A study of the Flor.Ves. is therefore particularly interesting, not only because we know what the compiler included from the Sangermanensis, but also because we have a good sense of what he/she chose to omit.
The Florilegium Vesulensium opens on folio 81r in Vesoul, Bibliothèque municipal, MS 73 (79)
A transcription of the Florilegium Vesulensium is provided here.
This post is a copy taken from svenmeeder.nl
- 1Roger E Reynolds, ‘Unity and diversity in Carolingian canon law collections: the case of the Collectio Hibernensis and its derivatives’, in: U.-R. Blumenthal (ed.), Carolingian essays: Andrew W. Mellon lectures in early Christian Studies (Washington, DC, 1983), pp. 99–135, at 119-23.
Normative texts need to be authoritative to be effective in communicating norms and rules. Recent scholarship has shown a renewed interest in the authoritative status of the texts within early medieval works of canon law and the ways in which authority is reflected in the practice of attribution, promulgation, or organization. A small canonical collection known as the Collectio 91 capitulorum appears to flout the received knowledge. My recent article in Early Medieval Europe presents this modest collection. It explores the relationship between ‘authority’ and canon law in general, and examines the negotiation of authority within this collection in particular.
