# Fragments Unveiled: a newly discovered manuscript of Henry of Langenstein's Sentences

Monica Brînzei

► To cite this version:

Monica Brînzei. Fragments Unveiled: a newly discovered manuscript of Henry of Langenstein's Sentences. Fragmentology, 2025, 8, pp.97-125. 10.24446/qxs0. hal-05473325

HAL Id: hal-05473325

https://hal.science/hal-05473325v1

Submitted on 23 Jan 2026

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
# Fragmentology

A Journal for the Study of Medieval Manuscript Fragments

*Fragmentology* is an international, peer-reviewed Open Access journal, dedicated to publishing scholarly articles and reviews concerning medieval manuscript fragments. *Fragmentology* welcomes submissions, both articles and research notes, on any aspect pertaining to Latin and Greek manuscript fragments in the Middle Ages.

Founded in 2018 as part of *Fragmentarium*, an international research project at the University of Fribourg (Switzerland) funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation, Stavros Niarchos Foundation (SNF), and the Zeno-Karl-Schindler Foundation, *Fragmentology* is published by the University of Fribourg and controlled by the Editorial Board in service to the scholarly community. Authors of articles, research notes, and reviews published in *Fragmentology* retain copyright over their works and have agreed to publish them in open access under a [Creative Commons Attribution license](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/); images may be subject to other licenses. Submissions are free, and *Fragmentology* does not require payment or membership from authors or institutions.

**Founding Editors:** William Duba (Fribourg), Christoph Flüeler (Fribourg)

**Editor:** William Duba (Fribourg)

**Associate Editor:** Veronika Drescher (Vienna)

**Editorial Board:** Lisa Fagin Davis, (Boston, MA), Christoph Egger (Vienna), Thomas Falmagne (Frankfurt), Scott Gwara (Columbia, SC), Nicholas Herman (Philadelphia), Christoph Mackert (Leipzig), Marilena Maniaci (Cassino), Stefan Morent (Tübingen), Åslaug Ommundsen (Bergen), †Nigel Palmer (Oxford)

**Typesetting:** Trine Wismann (Fribourg)

**Instructions for Authors:** Detailed instructions can be found at [https://www.fragmentology.ms/about/submissions/](https://www.fragmentology.ms/about/submissions/). Authors must agree to publish their work in Open Access.

*Fragmentology* is published annually at the University of Fribourg. For further information, inquiries may be addressed to *fragmentarium@unifr.ch*.

**Editorial Address:**
*Fragmentology*
Center for Manuscript Research
University of Fribourg
Rue de l'Hôpital 4
1700 Fribourg, Switzerland.

tel: +41 26 300 90 50

Funded by:

ΙΕΝ / SNF

ΙΔΡΥΜΑ ΣΤΑΥΡΟΣ ΝΙΑΡΧΟΣ
STAVROS NIARCHOS
FOUNDATION

VAKSI

Fondation ZENO KARL SCHINDLER
ZENO KARL SCHINDLER Foundation
ZENO KARL SCHINDLER - Stiftung
**Volume VIII, 2025**

Editorial: Fragmented Perspectives 1-4

**Articles**

*The Provenance of the Swedish-Finnish Manuscript Collection: A Case Study of Early Modern Parchment Reuse* 5-45

Seppo Eskola

*Bringing Missing Links Together: How Fragmentology and Digital Humanities can Restore Catalonia's Disturbed Cultural Memory* 47-96

Matthias Tischler

*Fragments Unveiled: A Newly Discovered Manuscript of Henry of Langenstein's Sentences* 97-125

Monica Brînzei

*In situ Fragments in Beinecke Library Incunabula* 127-153

Elizabeth Hebbard

**Research Notes**

*Mise-en-page between Roman Egypt and Medieval Europe: The Retention of Saint-Remi and the Layout of an Early Greek Parchment Codex (P. Ant. 1 27)* 155-169

Brent Nongbri

*Membra disiecta and the Dispersion of an Eighth-Century Codex in Rhaetian Script* 171-183

Marina Bernasconi Reusser

*Tracing Origins and Reassembling Fragments: Material from St. Gall, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. Sang. 1396.1-32* 185-206

Brigitte Roux

*Two Fragments of Augustine's In Iohannis evangelium tractatus from Lambach* 207-216

Lisa Fagin Davis

Hanc te volo diligentiam adhibere ... Late-Medieval Fragmentary Instructions on Housekeeping 217-232

Pieter Beullens
Fragments Combined: A Comprehensive Dataset on Swedish and
Finnish Medieval Book Fragments 233–240

Seppo Eskola

Book Review

Laura Albiero and Christian Meyer, *Fragments notés : Paris, Archives*

Nationales et Solesmes, Abbaye Saint-Pierre 241–243

Luca Ricossa

**Index of Shelfmarks** 245–255
# Fragments Unveiled: a newly discovered manuscript of Henry of Langenstein's Sentences

**Monica Brînzei**, Restory Project*
*monica.brinzei@recherche.gouv.fr*

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

**Abstract:** Five income registers documenting transactions of the seventeenth century at the Jesuit College in Luxembourg have been found to be partially covered by fragments of a manuscript containing Henry of Langenstein's commentary on the *Sentences* from Paris and the academic year 1371-1372. The discovery includes eight parchment bifolia and approximately 20 paper folios, a sizeable fragment of a previously unknown copy of a significant text for both the University of Paris and the new University of Vienna at the end of the fourteenth century. The recoverable text includes portions of book 1, questions 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6, as well as book II, question 1, by one of the founding figures of the Faculty of Theology at Vienna.

**Keywords:** *Sentences* commentaries, Henry of Langenstein, Jesuits, mixed quires

Commentaries on Peter Lombard's *Sentences* are key texts that played a pivotal role in disseminating philosophical and theological thought in the medieval universities. The vast number of surviving specimens in the genre, as well as their variety, comprehensive nature, and imposing size, make them revealing and rewarding objects of study. Yet their physical transmission can tell a different story. Originally conceived to encapsulate academic production,

<footnote>* This paper has received funding from the European Union under the Horizon 2020 project RESTORY n° 101132781. I am grateful to Thomas Falmagne for alerting me to the existence of the fragments discussed below; Chris Schabel and Bill Duba for their constructive comments. Marco Toste is preparing an edition of Langenstein's text and his draft transcription from Alençon, BM, 144 was extremely useful in helping to navigate through the text. I am currently finishing a book under the title *Homo est microcosmos. Henry of Langenstein's seminal ideas on public display. With an edition of his surviving principium (1370-1371)*.</footnote>
some of these codices, in exceptional cases, ended up being valued more for their material than for their contents.<fnref n="1" /> One example is a manuscript of Henry of Langenstein's commentary on the *Sentences* that was employed as covers for income and account registers from the Jesuit College in Luxembourg, established in 1603 and closed in 1773. To understand why the Jesuits chose to reuse Langenstein's work in this manner, it is helpful to begin with a brief biography of Langenstein and an overview of the circulation of the manuscripts transmitting his text.

As a young and promising scholar in the Faculty of Arts of the University of Paris, in 1363 Henry of Langenstein was invited to preach before the dauphin of France, the future King Charles v. Later, as a bachelor of theology, he delivered his lectures on the *Sentences* of Peter Lombard in 1371-1372² and in 1375 obtained the title of Master of Theology, which opened the door to a notable career in Parisian academia. He eventually rose to the position of Vice-Chancellor under John de Calore, but his academic ascent was abruptly halted around 1382, when the German Nation of scholars was forced to leave the University of Paris due to their allegiance to the Roman Pope Urban VI, in contrast to the French scholars, who supported Pope Clement VII in Avignon. After departing from the Valois capital, Henry of Langenstein eventually began a new chapter of his career in Vienna, where, in 1384, along with his dear colleague Henry Totting of Oyta, he became one of the founding members of the Faculty of Theology at the University of Vienna.<fnref n="3" />

Given such a fascinating trajectory, one might expect that his commentary on the *Sentences* circulated widely. In fact, however, only three manuscripts are presently known to transmit all or part of his set of questions on Lombard's *Sentences*:<fnref n="4" />

<footnote n="1">1 See M. Brînzei, "Recycling or Rubbishing Ockham's *Sentences*?", *Fragmentology* 7 (2024), 93-112.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">2 See M. Brînzei and C. Schabel, "Henry of Langenstein's *Principium* on the *Sentences*, His Fellow Parisian Bachelors, and the Academic Year 1371-1372", *Vivarium* 58 (2020), 334-346.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">3 E.A. Lukács, *Immovable Truth. Divine Knowledge and the Bible at the University of Vienna (1384-1419)* (Commentaria 15), Leiden 2024, 86-89.</footnote>

<footnote n="4">4 In his book on Langenstein, P. Justin Lang described A and W, but also München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 11591, which he misattributed to</footnote>
A = Alençon, Bibliothèque Municipale, 144, books I–IV and one *Principium*⁵

J = Jena, Thüringer Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek, El. f. 47, one *principium*⁶

W = Wien, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek (=ÖNB), Cod. 4319, books II–IV [https://data.onb.ac.at/rep/131B1773]⁷

5

Langenstein along with some other manuscripts that actually contain the *Sentences* questions of James of Eltville (from Paris, 1369–1370). Lang also provided a list of questions from A, including a *principium*, a question on the *prologus*, and four questions for book I, but he omitted one question, thinking that the first question for book I (*Circa primam distinctionem primi libri Sententiarum queritur utrum voluntas quolibet suo actu licito circa creaturas eis utatur et Deo solo fruatur*) runs from ff. 22ra–48rb, when, in fact, it ends at 31va and is followed by another question on ff. 31va–48rb (*Consequenter queritur tertio: utrum ex Sacris Scripturis et autenticis melius quam ex creaturis appareat veritas Trinitatis increate*). J. Lang, OFM, *Die Christologie bei Heinrich von Langenstein*, Freiburg 1966, 58–71, at 66–67 for the list of questions. For the correct attribution of Clm 11591, see M. Brînzei and L. Cioca, “New Attribution of Texts in the Manuscript München, Clm 11591”, *Chora* 12 (2014), 269–286.

H. Omont, *Catalogue général des manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques de France. Départements-Tome II: Rouen (suite et fin)* (Dieppe-Eu-Fécamp-Elbeuf-Gournay en Bray-Le Havre-Neufchâtel en Bray-Bernay-Conches-Gisors-Louviers-Verneuil-Évreux-Alençon-Montvilliers, Paris 1888, 528.

6

Langenstein's surviving *Principium* is the object of a forthcoming edition and study of J in Brînzei, *Homo est microcosmos* (forthcoming). For more on J, see M. Brînzei, “When Theologians Play Philosopher: A Lost Confrontation in the *Principia* of James of Eltville and His *Socii* on the Perfection of Species and Its Infinite Latitude”, in *The Cistercian James of Eltville* († 1393). Author in *Paris and Authority in Vienna* (Studia Sententiarum 3), ed. M. Brînzei and C. Schabel, Turnhout 2018, 43–77.

7

W was produced by one of Langenstein's disciples in Vienna, Michael of Suchenschatz. The text of Langenstein starts abruptly on the top of f. 145r in the middle of question 1 of book II and concludes at the end of book IV, with the following colophon on f. 237v: “*Explicunt questiones quarti Sententiarum Magistri Heinrici de Hassia simul et secundi et tertii Sententiarum eiusdem*”. W was the basis for the imperfect edition (with German translation) in *Der Sentenzenkommentar des Heinrich von Langenstein*, ed. R. Damerau, 4 vols., Marburg 1979–1980, which did not use A. On Suchenschatz, see E.A. Lukács, “Das zunehmende Wissen Christi in der Schriftauslegung von Heinrich Totting von Oyta and Michael Suchenschatz”, *Archa Verbi* 15 (2018) 162–190; A. Coman, “Grace Meets Free Will Ruling in a Regal Government: Magister Michael Suchenschatz on Grace and Free will”, in *The Rise of an Academic Elite: Deans, Masters, and Scribes at the University of Vienna before 1400* (Studia
In addition, at least part of a copy of book I different from *A* was once used in Vienna, since, in the autograph of his commentary on the *Sentences*, Nicholas of Dinkelsbühl incorporated passages from Langenstein's *Sentences* questions.<fnref n="8" />

The present paper adds some fragments of Langenstein's *Sentences* recently identified in the collection of Archives nationales de Luxembourg.<fnref n="9" /> These fragments are used in the bindings of five manuscripts from the former Jesuit College in Luxembourg, namely four seventeenth-century registers (L1–L4) and a smaller account book contemporary to the registers (L5):

L1: A-XXXVIII-01-0002

L2: A-XXXVIII-01-0609

L3: A-XXXVIII-01-0701

L4: A-XXXVIII-01-1030

L5: A-XXXVIII-02-0744

What these five books also have in common is that material fragments extracted from a manuscript containing Langenstein's *Sentences*

<footnote>Sententiarum, 6), ed. M. Brînzei, Turnhout 2022, 585–654; M. Brînzei, “Rectors and Deans as scribes at the Medieval University from Vienna”, ibid., 655–668, here 667.</footnote>

<footnote n="8">8 C. Schabel, “Nicholas of Dinkelsbühl and the *Filioque* at Vienna on the Eve of the Council of Florence”, in *Nicholas of Dinkelsbühl and the Sentences at Vienna in the Early Fifteenth Century* (Studia Sententiarum 1), ed. M. Brînzei, Turnhout 2014, 16–83, at 17–20, 36, and 38 for A. This hypothesis, that the borrowings in Nicholas of Dinkelsbühl’s autograph, Wien, Schottenstift, Bibliothek, Cod. 269, reflect another version of Langenstein’s commentary, is also discussed in M. Brînzei and C. Schabel, “Critically Editing a So-Called ‘Sentences Commentary’”, in *Sicut Dicit. Editing Ancient and Medieval Commentaries on Authoritative texts* (LECTIO Studies in the Transmission of Texts & Ideas, 8), ed. S. Schorn, S. Boodts, and P. De Leemans (†), Turnhout 2020, 243–271, at 250–251.</footnote>

<footnote n="9">9 In May 2024, Thomas Falmagne first drew the attention of Chris Schabel and myself to this series of fragments, which we identified as witnesses to Langenstein's text. In November 2024, I joined Falmagne in Luxembourg for a consultation of the manuscripts.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2: L1–L4 topped by L5 (Luxembourg, Archives nationales, A-XXXVIII-02-0744). Photograph prior to the restoration of L5</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1: L1–L4 (Luxembourg, Archives nationales, A-XXXVIII-01-0002, -0609, -0701, -1030)</figcaption></figure>

were used in their production. Each of the first four manuscripts is covered by two parchment bifolia, while the cover of the fifth is made of several paper pages from the same manuscript [Figures 1–2].

The following sections follow the sequence of the shelfmarks of the Luxembourg manuscripts and identify the content of these fragments by comparing them with the other extant witnesses to the text. This concordance will then reconstruct the copy of Henry of Langenstein's *Sentences* whence they came and determine how much of Langenstein's text can be recovered from the covers of these Jesuit registers. Most of the fragments contain passages from the
*principium*, prologue and beginning questions of book I, which is
only otherwise extant in A:

*Principium*: Utrum in timorem et legem Dei potuerit vigor natu-
ralis rei (A 1ra-8va)

Q. 1 (Prologus): Utrum veritas scientie humane repugnent conclu-
sionibus Christiane theologie (A 9ra-21vb)

Q. 2 (Book I, q. 1): Utrum voluntas quolibet suo actu licito circa
creaturas eis utatur et Deo solo fruatur (A 22ra-31va)

Q. 3 (Book I, q. 2): Utrum ex Sacris Scripturis et authenticis me-
lius quam ex creaturis appareat veritas Trinitatis increate (A
31va-48rb)

Q. 4 (Book I, q. 3): Utrum sit aliqua productio in divinis qua nec
essentia nec Spiritus Sanctus nec producat nec producatur (A
48rb-59ra)

Q. 5 (Book I, q. 4): Utrum caritas vel gratia viatoris possit in infini-
tum augeri (A 59ra-71va)

Q. 6 (Book I, q. 5): Utrum omne futurum contingens eternaliter sit
a Deo prescитum et ad fore determinatum (A 71va-89rb)

Q. 7 (Book II, q. 1): Utrum Peripatetici senserint omnia alia entia a
primo esse facta vel potius plurima entia non habere principi-
um effectivum. (A 89va-104va)

L1: A-XXXVIII-01-0002

The first register from the Jesuit College that includes fragments
from Langenstein contains a collection of documents from 1690.<fnref n="10" />
This register can be closed by means of four strips of red fabric at-
tached to the cardboard cover, two on the front cover and two on the
back. The outer sides of the covers are protected by two parchment
bifolia that preserve text in two columns per page and overlap at the
spine of the codex. The parchment is glued to the cardboard, so no
text can be recovered between the parchment and cardboard with-
out dismantling the covers, especially since blank sheets of paper
have been glued to the insides of the covers. On the outer sides of
the covers (henceforth referred to as the front cover and the back

<footnote n="10">10 A description of this codex by T. Falmagne will be published in volume III of the manuscript catalog of the Bibliothèque nationale de Luxembourg, forthcoming in the collection *Die Handschriften des Grossherzogtums Luxemburg*.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Figures 3–5: L1 (Luxembourg, Archives nationales, A-XXXVIII-01-0002)</figcaption></figure>

cover), however, eight columns from the original manuscript can be identified, although portions of one of the outer columns of the bifolia have been trimmed to varying degrees and are thus partially illegible.

There are three places where the content of the two parchment bifolia of L1 is covered by a label from the Jesuit archive. On the upper part of the front cover is affixed a large label reading N° 46: *inventaire de l'Archive*. Towards the bottom, another piece of paper was attached, either to reinforce the spine or to provide space for another inscription on the volume's spine. This tag extends over the spine and onto the back cover, where it cancels some text in two columns. Additionally, there is another tag on the spine, partially damaged, where the first and last letters of the word 'Index' are mostly erased. On the upper part of the spine, the shelfmark 'N46' is clearly written in elegant, bold handwriting. No text can be recovered from the inside of the covers, as the adhesive used is simply a blank sheet of paper glued over the cardboard cover.

A comparison of the text on the fragment with that in A shows that the bifolia used for the front cover and the back cover transmit text from book I, q. 6 of Langenstein's *Sentences*. Orienting the fragments so that they can be read, we observe the following correspondence:
## L1, front cover (interpolated text from A marked in brackets)

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th colspan="2">verso</th><th colspan="2">recto</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>passage in A</th><td>I, q. 6, f. 77va</td><td>I, q. 6, f. 77vb</td><td>I, q. 6, f. 75vb</td><td>I, q. 6, f. 76ra</td></tr><tr><th>begins</th><td>ut patebit<br>inferius</td><td>Pro responsione<br>ad rationes<br>predictas est<br>advertendum</td><td>oriri quod si ab<br>eterno habuisset<br>esse adhuc esse A<br>fuisse</td><td>non oportet (cum<br>manifestum sit, sed<br>quia Aureoleus)<br>super (dist. 38 primi<br>tenet conclusionem<br>Aristotelis in hac<br>parte)<br>ideo specialiter</td></tr><tr><th>ends</th><td>negavit omnem<br>(prescientiam<br>futurorum, ut)<br>patebit inferius</td><td>est advertendum<br>(quod, cum<br>dicitur quod<br>propositio de)<br>futuro</td><td>se habent quo<br>pro hoc instanti<br>habebit esse</td><td>fuisset, (semper<br>fuisset vera. Proba-<br>tur hoc, quia, si A)<br>semper</td></tr></tbody></table>

## L1, back cover

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th colspan="2">verso</th><th colspan="2">recto</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>passage in A</th><td>I, q. 6, f. 88rb-va</td><td>I, q. 6, f. 88va</td><td>I, q. 6, f. 88va-vb</td><td>I, q. 6, ff. 88vb-89ra</td></tr><tr><th>begins</th><td>(ulte)rius<br>argutum (fuit si<br>illa consequentia<br>ex illis) duabus</td><td>notat rationem<br>propriam<br>(visionis vel<br>ipsius videre) vel<br>eius quod es(t)</td><td>per esse vel ad<br>esse respective (ad<br>mensuram succes-<br>sivam) actualem<br>vel potentialem</td><td>et ex illo (non<br>sequitur quod<br>ille propositiones<br>predicate) et<br>scripte</td></tr><tr><th>ends</th><td>ly formaliter.</td><td>fuisse, quia<br>consurgit</td><td>predicaverunt<br>mortuos resur-<br>recturos et quod<br>Antichristus</td><td>si vero intelligitur<br>sic quod res<br>necessario</td></tr></tbody></table>

In short, the comparison with A reveals that L1's front cover comes from the innermost bifolium of a gathering, with the outwards-facing side visible, while the back cover comes from the innermost bifolium of the next gathering, with the inwards-facing side visible.

## L2: A-xxxviii-01-0609

The bifolia of L2 carry the most legible text, because there is only one label glued to the spine of the volume. On the front cover, the handwritten titles 'Vaux-3°-1680', 'V-10-3' are written in the blank spaces [Figure 6].
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Figures 6–8: L2 (Luxembourg, Archives nationales, A-XXXVIII-01-0609)</figcaption></figure>

## L2, front cover

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th colspan="2">verso</th><th colspan="2">recto</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>passage in A</th><td>I, q. 1, f. 20ra-rb</td><td>I, q. 1, f. 20rb-va</td><td>I, q. 1, f. 18rb-vb</td><td>I, q. 1, ff. 18vb-19ra</td></tr><tr><th>begins</th><td>prime, (quia ibi est minor resistentia quam) erat (in prima cognizione, quia in prima cognitione) fuit ignorantia</td><td>(de Sancto Victore in libro De trinitate credo sine) dubio ad quecumque que necesse est esse non tantum probabile ymmo</td><td>non potuit ... (Apparet) quia cuiuslibet talis ordinibus</td><td>se. Secundum corollarium, quod in qualibet serie (predicta infinite) relinquuntur conclusiones</td></tr><tr><th>ends</th><td>dicit Richardus</td><td>veritatum de preterito et de futuro et huiusmodi non potest reduci</td><td>iuveret et illustratione fidei irradiaretur</td><td>unreadable text</td></tr></tbody></table>

## L2, back cover

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th colspan="2">verso</th><th colspan="2">recto</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>passage in A</th><td>I, q. 2, 6, f. 26rb-va</td><td>I, q. 2, f. 26va-vb</td><td>I, q. 3, f. 36va</td><td>(not visible)</td></tr><tr><th>begins</th><td>augeret de malo miseriam, Augustinus etiam</td><td>vel capit ibi felicitatem pro 'aggregatione omnium bonorum'</td><td>(enu)ntiabili et sic videtur summi cum dicitur ab eo quod res</td><td></td></tr><tr><th>ends</th><td>Augustinum et Magistrum</td><td>est. Item, Augustinus dicit, primo De doctrina christiana</td><td>conformiter consonare sicud positioni</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
The text that can be recovered from L2 runs on seven legible columns and encompasses part of questions 1–3 (the prolog and questions 1–2 of book I) of Langenstein’s *Sentences* commentary. The parchment of the front cover formed the innermost bifolium of a gathering, probably a quaternion, with the outward-facing side visible, while the back cover, was the outermost bifolium of the next gathering.

## L3: A-XXXVIII-01-0701

The third register from this Jesuit collection contains and inventory of incomes and goods from different Jesuit properties (Useldange, Rhedingen, and neighboring places). The register has a label on the spine, and a seventeenth-century hand has written ‘Vnseldingen’, ‘1684’, ‘V-S-B-12’, ‘N° 3’, and ‘VS123’ on the front cover [Figure 9] and the date ‘1680’ on the back cover [Figure 10].

The bifolium visible on the front cover has traces of a title, in the partially visible outside column of the verso, at the top, where ‘fuit’ can be read. The bifolium wraps around to the inside, where a paper pastedown covers it, except for a hole in the paper that reveals the preceding word from the same title, ‘articulus’ [Figure 11, Figure 12]. The ties on both covers of this register are no longer extent.

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>Figures 9–10: L3 (Luxembourg, Archives nationales, A-XXXVIII-01-0609)</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>Figure 11: L3, front pastedown</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>Figure 12: Detail showing 'articulus' visible through a hole in the paper</figcaption></figure>

## L3, front cover

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th colspan="2">verso</th><th colspan="2">recto</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>passage in A</th><td>II, q. 1, f. 94rb-va</td><td>II, q. 1, f. 94va-vb</td><td>II, q. 1, f. 103va-vb</td><td>II, q. 1, ff. 103vb-104ra</td></tr><tr><th>begins</th><td>articulus* fuit<br>...primam<br>...motor</td><td>vim agenda,<br>licet nullum<br>effectum earum<br>ei comproducat</td><td>distantium a se<br>in tribus circulis<br>equae distantibus</td><td>qui habent causas<br>proprias in rebus<br>inferioribus</td></tr><tr><th>ends</th><td>... tertia (quod<br>prima tam<br>necessario agit<br>ad extra quan<br>tum</td><td>totalem<br>militarem ad<br>dirigendum<br>totum exercitum</td><td>vel homo (et<br>cetera) est spe-<br>cialis combinatio<br>vel concursus<br>influential</td><td>(ple)ne cognosceret<br>tamquam causatum<br>(per causam. Si<br>etiam aliquam) rem</td></tr></tbody></table>

## L3, back cover

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th colspan="2">verso</th><th colspan="2">recto</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>passage in A</th><td>1, q. 3, f. 44va-vb</td><td>1, q. 3, ff. 44vb-45ra</td><td>1, q. 3, ff. 42vb-43ra</td><td>1, q. 3, f. 43ra</td></tr><tr><th>begins</th><td>dicit essentiam<br>abstractive<br>vel ut</td><td>(ibi divisibilis<br>vel indivi)sibilis<br>dicitur quod<br>indivisibilis et<br>cum</td><td>Negatur<br>consequentia<br>prima, quia Pater<br>et Filius simul ut<br>unum principium<br>vel</td><td>unreadable text</td></tr><tr><th>ends</th><td>(quaeri)tur si<br>distantia vel<br>incompossibili-<br>tas remaneat</td><td>non dicunt<br>incompos-<br>sibilitatem<br>formaliter. Ante-<br>cedens patet quia<br>contingit</td><td>earum quia ille<br>tres combinator-<br>nes sunt omnes<br>binarii earum</td><td>de(nominatur<br>per predicatum<br>relativum, nec est<br>ratio propter)<br>quam (non eque<br>possit dici quod)<br>s(oli)</td></tr></tbody></table>
<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>Figures 13–15: L4 (Archives nationales, A-XXXVIII-01-0609)</figcaption></figure>

L3 therefore has on the front cover the outermost bifolium of a gathering, probably a sextern, with the inward-facing side visible, and, on the back cover, the innermost bifolium of another gathering, with the outward-facing side visible.

## L4: A-XXXVIII-01-1030

The spine of L4 has deteriorated the most in this collection." The paper label has mostly been destroyed, remaining only on the sides of the front and back covers, where it obscures portions of the text of the two bifolia. On the front cover [Figure 13], one can read in black ink the inscriptions 'IT=379' and 'Accepta' and the pencil notation '1701-1717'. On the back cover, there is only an expunged black ink note from which only a few letters are legible: '**soclxii**' [Figure 15]. Both covers of this register are in poor condition, and a significant portion of the text on the parchment bifolia is not easily decipherable. The two bifolia preserve sections of questions 4 and 6 (book I, qq. 3 and 5) of Langenstein's *Sentences* commentary.

<footnote n="11">11 See the forthcoming codicological description of T. Falmagne.
*Fragmentology VIII* (2025)</footnote>
## L4, front cover

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th colspan="2">verso</th><th colspan="2">recto</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>passage in A</th><td>not visible</td><td>I, q. 4, f. 49rb–va</td><td>I, q. 3, f. 37va–vb</td><td>I, q. 3, ff. 37vb–38ra</td></tr><tr><th>begins</th><td></td><td>Ad sextam posset concedi antece-dens, si potentia accipiatur prout distinguitur</td><td>reputnet modo essendi creature magis quam alter de isto videndum</td><td>habere rationem (constitutivam per se unius accidentalis) vel (per se) unum acciden-tale sicut</td></tr><tr><th>ends</th><td></td><td>se absolute, quamvis</td><td>(on spine) Hic a quibusdam diceretur quod iste negative essent vere</td><td>(on the spine): reperire secundum Porphi-rium. Hinc oritur quod vere negative</td></tr></tbody></table>

## L4, back cover

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th colspan="2">verso</th><th colspan="2">recto</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>passage in A</th><td>not visible</td><td>I, q. 6, f. 71va–vb</td><td>I, q. 6, f. 82ra</td><td>I, q. 6, f. 82rb–va</td></tr><tr><th>begins</th><td></td><td>scientiarum (et virtu-tum inter omnes ani-mas que humanum) corpus</td><td>intuetur omnem enti-tatem possibilem pre-teritam et presentem</td><td>creabilis intuitive videret divinam essentiam et</td></tr><tr><th>ends</th><td></td><td>presciebat necessario futurum erat. S(imi-liter dicit) Anselmus, De concordia, dicit capitulo 1, quod illud</td><td>est sed est ratione</td><td>tenentibus (ex parte cau) salitatis obiecta-lis. Ex isto infero primo quod</td></tr></tbody></table>

## L5: A-XXXVIII-02-0744

Register L5 is smaller size (21 × 15.5 cm) than the others (31 × 21/20.5 cm). Another notable difference is that all the fragments of Langenstein's *Sentences* commentary recycled in this codex are on paper, glued together to form the cardboard of the covers. The binding of the manuscript was in very poor condition, with the spine completely destroyed [Figures 16–17].

At the top of the spine, a cracked label still bears the inscription 'V° 4 / 1646–1679', matching the contents, a register of transactions involving the Jesuit college of Luxembourg. The cover consists of two consecutive leaves, possibly the inner two of a bifolium, from what appears to be a fourteenth-century missal. The back cover [Figure 17] has the right column legible, where the rubric *Emmerenciane et mart.* likely signals the beginning of the Mass for St. Emerentiana
<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>Figures 16–17: L5 (Luxembourg, Archives nationales, A-XXXVIII-02-0744)</figcaption></figure>

(23 January), with introit, Psalm, collect, and a reading from He-
brews (10:32–), which continues on the left column of the front
cover (–38), followed by the offertory *Exultabunt sancti in gloria*
(Cantus: go1323) and the offertory verse *Cantate domino canticum
novum* (Cantus: go1323a), and then a reading from Matthew 24:1–7
(at least).

The parchment that serves as the front cover was detached, re-
vealing that the other side of the parchment was covered in black
ink, so that it would adhere better to the cardboard, to which glue
was then added. A sizeable portion of a column of Langenstein's
*Sentences* commentary was visible; the missal covered boards made
of cardboard, itself made by gluing together what appeared to be
sixteen paper leaves from the same commentary by Langenstein
[Figure 18].

The poor condition of the binding required that the volume be
restored, and the cardboard was separated into sixteen leaves, which
were then photographed and numbered according to the order in
which they were glued [Figures 19–22].<fnref n="12" /> Organizing the pages ac-
cording to where the text appears in A reveals that the paper leaves

<footnote n="12">12 I am grateful to the conservator of the Luxembourg National Archives, Na-dine Zeien, for the skillful and careful work of separating the leaves. Thomas Falmagne supervised the renumbering of the pages and provided me with the photographs of the individual pages.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_13.png" /><figcaption>Figure 18: L5, with the front cover lifted</figcaption></figure>

constituted most of the intermediate bifolia (that is, neither the outermost bifolium, nor the innermost, but almost all in between) of two consecutive sexterns, and leaves from a third one in series.

Upper board (A-xxxviii-02-0744-1)

<table><thead><tr><th>Reading Order</th><th>L5 foliation</th><th>passage in A</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>8v</td><td>27ra</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>8r</td><td>27rb</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>7r</td><td>28ra</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>7v</td><td>28rb-vb</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>6v</td><td>29ra</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>6r</td><td>29rb</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>5r</td><td>29va-vb</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>5v</td><td>30rb</td></tr><tr><td>4 Missing Pages (1 bifolium)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>4v</td><td>33rb-33va</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>4r</td><td>32va-vb</td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>3v</td><td>33va-vb</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>3r</td><td>34ra-va</td></tr><tr><td>13</td><td>2r</td><td>34vb</td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td>2v</td><td>35ra-va</td></tr><tr><td>15</td><td>1v</td><td>35va-vb</td></tr><tr><td>16</td><td>1r</td><td>36ra-va</td></tr></tbody></table>
<figure><img src="image_14.png" /><figcaption>Figures 19-22: L5, interior leaves, post-restoration</figcaption></figure>
Lower board (A-xxxviii-02-0744-II)

<table><thead><tr><th>Reading Order</th><th>L5 foliation</th><th>passage in A</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>2v</td><td>39ra</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>2r</td><td>39rb</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>6r</td><td>39vb-4ora</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>6v</td><td>4ova</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>4v</td><td>4ira-rb</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>4r</td><td>41rb-va</td></tr><tr><td>8 Missing pages (4 bifolia, including L3, back cover)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>5v</td><td>46ra-rb</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>5r</td><td>46vb</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>3r</td><td>47ra</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>3v</td><td>47vb</td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>7v</td><td>48rb</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>7r</td><td>48vb</td></tr><tr><td>6 Missing pages (3 bifolia, including L4, front cover)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>13</td><td>8r</td><td>54va-vb</td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td>8v</td><td>55ra-rb</td></tr><tr><td>15</td><td>1r</td><td>57vb</td></tr><tr><td>16</td><td>1v</td><td>58va-vb</td></tr></tbody></table>

Philological Significance

A philological analysis of sections of book II based on a collation of the three manuscripts, Alençon, Bibliothèque Municipale, 144 (A), Wien, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Cod. 4319 (W) (published by Damerau), and the Luxembourg fragments, reveals that the manuscript from which the Luxembourg fragments come belonged to the same family as A. The brief appendix to this paper offers an edition of the passage in L3, back cover, verso, column 2 (Langenstein's book II, q. 1; f. 94va-vb in A), with full apparatus criticus from the three surviving witnesses. W contains a passage of
21 lines that are missing in AL3,<fnref n="13" /> and this is the case for a few other passages in W (see the apparatus). There are also a few instances when L3 and W share variants (see lines X, Y, and Z), which might be either variants of A or explained by the fact that they reflect more accurately what was probably in the phenotype of the text. L3 has also some unshared readings, but they do not help clarify the position of the Luxembourg fragments in the transmission of the text.

## Historical Significance

The five Jesuit registers are extremely valuable in reconstructing part of the story of this newly identified copy of Langenstein's commentary on the *Sentences* of Peter Lombard. The registers contain eight parchment bifolia and paper from two quires (probably two mixed seniors: 2 bifolia of parchment and 4 of paper) originating from questions 1-4 and 6-7 (that is, the Prologus, qq. 1-3 and 5 of book I, and q. 1 of book II) of this commentary. This suggests that the Jesuits were perhaps in possession of a complete manuscript, or at least a copy covering both books I and II, in contrast to the surviving copy that circulated in Vienna (Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 4319), which did not transmit book I. Since the Jesuits used materials from different parts of the commentary, it is likely that the entire codex was recycled to reinforce or cover other administrative documents or books in their collection. Unfortunately no further evidence of this has yet been found.

The copy of Langenstein's *Sentences* employed in the Jesuit codices was a mixed manuscript, written on both paper and parchment. The parchment bifolia were on the outsides and in the middle of each quire, likely to reinforce the structure of the codex. At the end of the fourteenth century this practice of fashioning manuscripts with mixed materials was quite popular.<fnref n="14" />

<footnote n="13">13 For a philological analysis of the relationship between A and W, see in Brînzei, *Homo est microcosmos* (forthcoming).</footnote>

<footnote n="14">14 Another copy of the *Sentences* of Henricus Totting of Oyta, today Oxford, Balliol College 72, is also a mixed manuscripts where parchment bifolia protect quires of paper. F. Bianchi, P. Canart, M. d'Agostino, L. Lucchini, S. Magrini, M. Maniaci, P. Orsatti, M. Palma, and M. Signorini, "Une recherche sur les manuscripts à cahiers mixtes," *Scriptorium* 48/2 (1994), 259-286. For a recent</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_15.png" /><figcaption>Figure 23: Visualization of L. Reconstruction made with VCEditor</figcaption></figure>

By comparing the text on the parchment bifolia with the corresponding passages in A, we can model the original structure of L [Figure 23]. This reconstruction, assuming a regular quire structure

discussion on mixed parchment and paper quires, see M. Johnston, “A Lydgate Anthology: The Codicological Vicissitudes of Rawlinson C. 48”, in *Poets and Scribes in Late Medieval England. Essays on Manuscripts and meaning in honor of Susanna Fein* (Festschriften, Occasional Papers, and Lectures), ed. M. Johnston, K. Herby-Fulton, and D. Pearsall, Berlin 2023, 87–109, esp. 96–98.

DOI: 10.24446/wkwv
throughout the manuscript, allows us to conclude that L originally contained Langenstein's *Principium* as well, and that this text was copied in the first quire together with the beginning of Question 1 of Book I. By comparison, the first quire of A seems added to the core of the manuscript and copied by another hand.

From these quires, the Jesuits made careful use of every scrap of the scholastic materials, which were probably no longer in fashion. Thus the parchment bifolia were used to protect the covers of four large registers (L1–L4), while the paper leaves were employed to create the cardboard covers for the fifth, smaller register (L5). It is likely that other paper leaves are still hiding in intact bindings.

The manuscript from which the Luxembourg fragments come may have been produced in the same context as the Alençon copy, probably in Paris. Details of the hands of the manuscripts support this hypothesis. One copy of the *Sentences* commentary of Henry Totting of Oyta, a close collaborator and friend of Henry of Langenstein who was also a member of the German Nation of scholars in Paris, is conserved in Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France (=BnF), Latin 15895, formerly in the library of the Collège de Sorbonne, as indicated by the former shelfmark 'Sorbonne 688' [Figure 24]. The scribe of this manuscript, who was not necessarily French, shares the same style of handwriting as in Langenstein's text in the Luxembourg fragments. For example, both manuscripts display the same three types of the letter *S*: a long *S*, a long *S* with a double stroke; and a round *S* at the end of words. The long *S* with a double stroke is significant. The double stroke, which does not belong to the hand of a professional scribe, is a common sign of hasty writing in academic manuscripts from the end of the fourteenth century. Simplified and rapidly written letters can also be seen in the letter *H*, where the upper part of the letter takes the form of a triangle. The abbreviation of *est* as a 3 with a long tail is also seen in both A and L, and the two witnesses share the same shapes for capital letters.

These handwriting examples suggest that the former codex of the Luxembourg fragments was likely produced at the same time and for the same motivation as the Oyta manuscript. It is perhaps no coincidence that the most comprehensive writings of two illustrious German secular theologians at Paris, Henry of Langenstein and
<figure><img src="image_16.png" /><figcaption>Figure 24: Paris, BnF, Latin 15895, f. 1r. Image: Gallica [https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b90672581]</figcaption></figure>

Henry Totting of Oyta, were copied in the French academic context, at least one of which became part of the collection of *Sentences* commentaries in the library of the Sorbonne (i.e., Paris, BnF, Latin
<figure><img src="image_17.png" /><figcaption>Figure 25: *Grandes Chroniques de France*, Paris, BnF, Français 2813, f. 475r: Jean Calore and Henry of Langenstein, chancellor and vice-chancellor of the University of Paris, preach before King Charles v.</figcaption></figure>

15895). Although they had to leave Paris around 1382 owing to the Schism, the doctrinal contribution of these theologians was known in the Valois capital. In addition, the German Nation of scholars in Paris was extremely dynamic in the years leading up to the Great Schism, and most of the German masters of theology at Paris had
known each other or were part of the same circles for decades.<fnref n="15" /> This connection is mirrored by their efforts to reproduce their texts and distribute them among their peers.<fnref n="16" />

At Paris, Oyta and Langenstein also received the admiration of their French peers. For example, Jean Gerson occasionally praised the memory of Henry Totting of Oyta,<fnref n="17" /> while a representation of Henry of Langenstein as vice-chancellor of the University of Paris, in the company of Chancellor Jean Calore preaching before King Charles v of France, can be seen in Paris, BnF, Français 2813, f. 475r [Figure 25]. To this portrait we can add the one that decorated the Sorbonne library until the seventeenth century,<fnref n="18" /> just when the Jesuits from Luxembourg were recycling the material basis of his text.

One question still remains open: why was this apparently Parisian manuscript in the possession of the Jesuit college? And why at Luxembourg? Might the Jesuits, well known for their involvement in editing and printing texts, have acquired this manuscript with the aim of publishing one of the most important writings of the

<footnote n="15">15 See for example the constellation of German scholars and the friendship among, for example, James of Eltville, Henry of Langenstein, John Hiltalingen of Basel, Angel Dobelin, Conrad Zollern, John Brammart, John of Wassia, and Paul of Gelria.</footnote>

<footnote n="16">16 John of Retz, for example, present in Paris until 1393, copied the Sentences of Conrad of Ebrach, which is now in Oxford, Bodleian Library, Canon. Misc. 573. He is likely also the copyist of Alençon, Bibliothèque Municipale, 144, and Oxford, Balliol College 246, ff. 169ra-171rb (Utrum divina sapientia ab eterno communicabilis intus et extra generaliter sit vel esse possit beatitudo rationalis creature formalis), which is a copy of one principium of Henry Totting of Oyta. Cf. A. Zumkeller, "Der Wiener Theologieprofessor Johannes von Retz, O.S.A. († nach 1404) und seine Lehre von Urstand, Erbsünde, Gnade und Verdienst", Augustiniana 21 (1971), 505-540, here 505-506.</footnote>

<footnote n="17">17 M. Dekarli, "Henry Totting of Oyta and the Prague Nominalist Schola Communis between 1366 and 1409: A Preliminary Draft", Historia Universitatis Carolinae Pragensis 55/1 (2015), 53-70, at 53-54 for Gerson's praise of Oyta. For more on the doctrinal influence of Oyta on Gerson, see Brînzei, *Homo est microcosmos* (forthcoming).</footnote>

<footnote n="18">18 Langenstein's portrait was apparently among those of other towering figures in the gallery of portraits of illustrious personalities that decorated the library of the Sorbonne until the seventeenth century. A list made by Claude Héméré (1580-1650), a witness to this gallery, was published in L. Delisle, *Le cabinet des manuscripts de la Bibliothèque nationale*, vol. II, Paris 1874, 200, n. 3.</footnote>
*Plantator gymnasi Viennensis in Austria? Or maybe another detail from Langenstein's life can bring more light to this.* As of 16 June 1365, Henry *Heynbuch* or Henry of Langenstein, cleric of Mainz, had not yet secured a benefice with an income, when Pope Urban V granted him a canonry with expectancy of a prebend in Worms Cathedral.<fnref n="19" /> He must not have been able to obtain the prebend in Worms, however, at least not before 27 January 1371, when a letter of Pope Gregory XI describes Henry *Hembuech*, bachelor of theology and master of arts, as having secured no benefice. In that letter, Gregory ordered the chancellor of Paris to examine Henry and, if found worthy, to assign him a benefice worth not more than 18 silver marks annually if without cure of souls or 25 marks with cure of souls. The benefice was to pertain to the collation of the abbot and monks of the Benedictine St. Maximin Abbey outside the walls of Trier.<fnref n="20" />

St. Maximin was a very powerful abbey, closely linked to the count of Luxembourg, who was its *advocatus* with various rights and obligations. A letter of the Roman Pope Boniface IX dated 30 August 1391 informs us that the parish church of St. Nicholas in *novo foro* (Nikloskierch am Neumarkt), the main parish church of the city of Luxembourg, was vacant because of the resignation of the benefice by Henry *de Hassia*. Langenstein had resigned his post into the hand of Abbot John of the Benedictine abbey of St Mary of Luxembourg.<fnref n="21" /> Given the links with St. Maximin, it seems likely that Langenstein's benefice in Luxembourg was connected to the papal concession of two decades earlier, which was likely granted because of his status as bachelor of theology.

One month after the announcement of the vacancy in Luxembourg, on 28 September 1391, Pope Boniface announced that Henry *de Langensteyn alias de Hassia* intended to resign his canonry and

<footnote n="19">19 *Rotuli Parisienses. Supplications to the Pope from the University of Paris*, vol. II: 1352–1378, ed. W.J. Courtenay and E.D. Goddard, Leiden 2004, 315.</footnote>

<footnote n="20">20 Ibid., 435.</footnote>

<footnote n="21">21 The abbey was traditionally called Mënster (a dialect form of Münster) and was replaced by the Neimënster after the first was destroyed in 1542; H.V. Sauerland, *Urkunden und Regesten zur Geschichte der Rheinlande aus dem Vatikanischen Archiv* (Publikationen der Gesellschaft für Rheinische Geschichte 23), vol. 4, Bonn 1907, 189, n° 414.</footnote>
prebend in Liège Cathedral, so the pope reserved them for someone else.<fnref n="22" /> Perhaps the canonry in Liège was a reward for Langenstein's promotion to master of theology during the 1375–1376 academic year, but the only solid evidence for Langenstein's possession of the post in Liège is in three letters of 1388 concerning his attempt to trade his canonry for another benefice.<fnref n="23" />

Kreuzer hypothesized that, after leaving Paris, Langenstein went first to Liège, presumably because the evidence for this post is stronger than for Luxembourg, and because the 1388 letters involve the residency requirement in Liège, which Langenstein wanted to avoid. Concerning the connection between Langenstein and Liège, it is worth adding another detail. Although there is no concrete evidence of Langenstein's presence in Liège, echoes of his ideas from his *principium* to the *Sentences* appear to have circulated in Liège. Gerardus Rondelli, a doctor of theology at Paris in 1401 and a cleric of the diocese of Liège, composed a *Sermo De conceptione Beate Virginis coram doctoribus et universitate Parisiensi* in which long passages from Langenstein's *principium* are reproduced verbatim.<fnref n="24" /> This sermon seems to have been first delivered in Paris,<fnref n="25" /> then circulated in Liège, and it survives today in manuscript form in Bruxelles, KBR, ms. 11817-40, ff. 64v-72v and also in an edited form from the seventeenth century. It is very likely that it circulated in Liège where Rondelli was active, and maybe at the time when Rondelli endowed a benefice in honor of the Blessed Virgin in the chapter of Notre-Dame at the abbey church of Soleimont.<fnref n="26" /> The precise

<footnote n="22">22 H.V. Sauerland, “Vatikanische biographische Notizen zur Geschichte des XIV. und XV. Jahrhunderts,” *Jahrbuch der Gesellschaft für lothringische Geschichte und Altertumskunde* 15 (1903), 468–475, at 474, n° 9.</footnote>

<footnote n="23">23 G. Kreuzer, *Heinrich von Langenstein. Studien zur Biographie und zu den Schismatraktaten unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Epistola pacis und der Epi-stola consilii pacis* (Quellen und Forschungen aus dem Gebiet der Geschichte 6), Paderborn 1987, 52–53, 240–245.</footnote>

<footnote n="24">24 Brînzei, *Homo est microcosmos* (forthcoming).</footnote>

<footnote n="25">25 Lourdaux, *Bibliotheca Valis Sancti Martini*, 523; W. Lourdaux and M. Hever-als, *Bibliotheca Vallis Sancti Martini in Lovanio, Bijdrage tot de studie van het geestesleven in de Nederlanden (15de-18de eeuw)* (Symbolae Facultatis Litter-atum et Philosophiae Lovaniensis 8), vol. I, Leuven 1978, 523.</footnote>

<footnote n="26">26 T. Sullivan, O.S.B., *Parisian Licentiates in Theology, AD 1373-1500. A bibliographical Register* (Education and Society in the Middle Ages and Renaissance 37),</footnote>
passages that Rondelli copied from Langenstein suggest that he had
direct access to a copy of Langenstein’s text. This observation raises
another question: should we suppose that Rondelli possessed his
own copy of Langenstein’s *Sentences* in his private library and that
one was known in Liège?<fnref n="27" />

The presence in Luxembourg of substantial fragments of a man-
uscript containing his *Sentences* questions, however, may indicate
that Langenstein instead paused there and not in Liège.

<footnote>vol. 2, Leiden 2011, 482–483.</footnote>

<footnote n="27">27 About his book and what he donated, see Sullivan, O.S.B., *Parisian Licentiates in Theology*, 483.</footnote>
Appendix: Henrici de Langenstein, *In II Sententiarum, q. 1, excerptum*

A, ff. 94va-vb

W, ff. 148r-v

L3, front cover, verso, col. b

ed. Damerau, vol. II, pp. 12.9-14.27

... vim agendi, licet nullum effectum earum ei comproducat, sed quod ipsi solum agant amore ipsius et cetera, sicud lumen dat efficiaciam agendi colori sensus suos in medium.

Secunda opinio est quod produxit secundam intelligentiam cum suo orbe et mediante illo tertiam, et sic consequenter mediante mediis ultimam et mediantibus dictis intelligentiis cum suis celis mundum istum elementarem et quod sit ibi una linea essentialis subordinationis causarum usque ad elementa, quarum prior non posset agere sine posteriori nec econverso.

5

Tertia quod prima tam necessario agit ad extra quantum ad effectus cursus naturalis universi, quamvis etiam habeat posse libere contradictorie ad extra agendi et mirabilia faciendi, verbi gratia recte sicut anima microcosmi habet operationes quasdam naturaliter ad extra et alias libere contradictorie, ut sunt motus [A 94vb] voluntarii, et quibus facit effectus artificiales plures.

10

15

Ex quibus apparet quod, stante tali ypotesi, tunc si philosophi incepissent predicasse unum verum Deum esse et illum debere recoveri super omnia latria et divino cultu, totum populum haberet ad se videntur traxisse ad sectam eorum, sicut apostoli predicantes Christum traxerunt homines ad legem Christi et cultum divinum quem ipse instituit. Quod, quia non fecerunt vel saltem occulte vel

20

<footnote n="1">1 earum ei] earum eis L3 eorum W 2 ipsi]ipse L3W et cetera] om. W</footnote>

<footnote n="3">3 colori... medium] om. AL3</footnote>

<footnote n="4">4 opinio] om. W produxit] produxerit W</footnote>

<footnote n="5">5 suo orbe] celo suo W illo tertiam] illa tertia W 5-7 mediante... elementarem] om. AL3</footnote>

<footnote n="9">9 posteriori] prioris A 10 quod prima</footnote>

<footnote>tam] ponit cum prima W agit] om. A</footnote>

<footnote n="12">12 mirabilia] scrips. A; miracula</footnote>

<footnote>la L3 14 alias] naturaliter add. L3</footnote>

<footnote n="14">14 voluntarii] voluntarie W</footnote>

<footnote>artificiales] scrips. W</footnote>

<footnote>16-44 Ex quibus... est de primis] om. AL3. For a detailed analysis of the lost treatise *De natura communi* cited in this passage, see Brînzei, *Homo est microcosmos, forthcoming*.</footnote>
manifeste debuissent cogitasse de institutione alicuius divini cultus debito primo omne tamquam Deo suo, ideo ratione talis negligentie non excusandi, sed potius incusandi sunt. Et causa quare hoc neglexerunt forte fuit, quia credebant quamlibet speciem universi habere finem naturaliter actingibilem in hoc mundo, qui esset hominis optima dispositio et status perfectissimus et quod exorbitatores ab illo eorum fine vitiose moraliter sese habendo punirentur per hoc sufficienter, quod frustarentur optimo statu eorum quem neglexerunt, et ita propria malitia et deordinatione est. Igitur pena reformans et etiam aliorum virtus eo magis apparet et facit ad pulchritudinem universi.

25

30

Predictis correlarie adicitur quod duplices sunt effectus cursus communis, quidam qui fiunt sine specialibus casibus ex occasionibus prestitis circa aliquas res universi et sunt qui non fiunt nisi cum illis et vocantur effectus nature communis et sunt quasi miraculosi respectu aliorum, de quibus dixi aliquando in tractatu *De natura communi*. Et adhuc illi sunt in duplici differentia, quia quidam sunt quorum occasiones et casus propter quos extinguunt constant et experiuntur et alii respectu quorum non sic, et [W 148v] de illis ultimis philosophi opinantes quod in lege nostra nichil extra cursum naturalem accidat dicerent: forte fuisse effectus omnes quos nos vocamus miraculosos, quamvis eorum actiones nos laterent et non sic de hoc, ut dictum est de primis.

35

40

Circa quod est opinio primo (libro) *Sententiarum*, distinctione 42, quod mens illius philosophi est quod quilibet orbis habet duos motores, unum quidem proprium et sibi unitum naturaliter per modum forme largientis duas perfectiones eidem modo exposito in precedentibus. Et hic movet tantum per modum agentis et immediate dictum orbem producendo scilicet immediate motum eius circularem. Et hoc modo coniuncta est et movet quilibet intelligentia abstracta praeter primam. Secundus motor quem quilibet orbis habet est non quidem proprius, ut probavit Avicenna, sed communis movens tantummodo per modum finis, ut amatum et desideratum

45

50

<footnote n="45">45 primo] primam L3W 46 philosophi] philosophie L3W</footnote>

<footnote>quod] sup. lin. L3 47 unitum naturaliter] inv. L3W</footnote>

<footnote>52-53 quilibet orbis habet] habet quilibet orbis W</footnote>

<footnote>probavit] putavit W</footnote>

<footnote n="54">54 et om. W</footnote>

<footnote n="48">48 exposito] exposita A</footnote>

<footnote n="53">53 habet] om. L3</footnote>
55

a motoribus aliis coniunctis et activis; et hic motor est intelligentia simpliciter prima, quam Deum vocant et causam primam.

Modus autem sue motionis secundum istam opinionem est quod ipsa prima causa vel intelligentia virtualiter et velut ars quedam universalis omnia exemplariter continens et eminenter existens in mente cuiuslibet alterius intelligentie, causat efficienter desiderium sive amorem et complacentiam sui in illis, ita quod eadem ipsa est, quae immediate efficit desiderium et que terminat seu finit.

60

Nam ipsa est quam appetunt et in qua complacent. Ex tali autem complacentia quilibet motor alius movet ad explicandum artem illam universalem in materia per motum sui orbis magis et minus, secundum quod illam magis et minus intelligunt. Nam motor pri- mi orbis intelligens eam totaliter et universaliter intendit bonum simpliciter etiam totius universi, sicud dux habens in mente artem totalem militarem ad dirigendum totum exercitum ...

65

<footnote n="57">57 sue] prime W 59 omnia] omnium W</footnote>

<footnote>sat] causa W 61 eadem] eodem A</footnote>

<footnote>fiunt W 63 qua complacent] om. L3</footnote>

<footnote n="64">64 ad] om. W 68 etiam] om. W</footnote>

<footnote>et] ut W 60 cau-</footnote>

<footnote n="62">62 que] om. W seu finit] sive complacent] placent W</footnote>