The Paenitentiale Theodori (also known as the Iudicia Theodori or Canones Theodori) is an early medieval penitential handbook based on the judgements of Archbishop Theodore of Canterbury. It exists in multiple versions, the fullest and historically most important of which is the U or Discipulus Umbrensium version (hereafter the Paenitentiale Umbrense), composed (probably) in Northumbria within approximately a decade or two after Theodore's death. Other early though far less popular versions are those known today as the Capitula Dacheriana, the Canones Gregorii, the Canones Basilienses, and the Canones Cottoniani, all of which were compiled before the Paenitentiale Umbrense probably in either Ireland and/or England during or shortly after Theodore's lifetime.
Background It is generally accepted by scholars today that Theodore himself is not responsible for any of the penitential works ascribed to him. Rather, a certain associate of Theodore's named Eoda is generally regarded as the point of dissemination of certain judgements proffered by Theodore in an unofficial context and in response to questions put to him by students at his Canterbury school regarding proper ecclesiastical organization and discipline.
Authorship and structure
Capitula Dacheriana Scholars have for some time accepted that the Capitula Dacheriana represents the earliest attempt to assemble together Theodorian penitential judgments.See Charles-Edwards, "Penitential", p. 142. The case for the Capitula Dacheriana as an Irish production has been argued most effectively by Thomas Charles-Edwards, who noticed, first, that the Capitula Dacheriana lacks any obvious structural framework. For Charles-Edwards, this feature (or rather lack of a feature) is symptomatic of the non-Roman character of the Capitula Dacheriana, and thus suggests its creation outside of Theodore's immediate circle, and perhaps even outside of the Rome-oriented Anglo-Saxon church.Charles-Edwards, "Penitential", p. 144: "Whereas the Disciple's work is organized in Roman fashion, by books and titles, the [Capitula Dacheriana] are simply a series of sentences with no overt structural framework." Whether or not this is true, there are other, strong signs that the Capitula Dacheriana was produced in ecclesiastical circles that had rather less connection to Theodore's Canterbury than with Irish and Celtic centres. Specifically, the Capitula Dacheriana has both textual and literary connections with eighth-century Irish and/or Breton canonical activities.
The Capitula Dacheriana is witnessed today by two tenth-century manuscripts produced in Brittany. Ludwig Bieler has shown that the copyists of both manuscripts derived their text of the Capitula Dacheriana from the same eighth-century collection of Irish materials that was still resident in Brittany in the tenth century — a collection that also included (or was at least closely associated with) the Collectio canonum Hibernensis.L. Bieler, ed. and trans., The Irish penitentials, with an appendix by D.A. Binchy, Scriptores Latini Hiberniae 5 (Dublin, 1963), pp. 20–4. The A-recension of the Collectio canonum Hibernensis, believed to have been compiled before 725,This terminus ante quem is not as certain as it is often claimed to be. It is based on the evidence of a colophon found in the Paris 12021, which ascribes its copy of the Hibernensis to Ruben of Dairinis (died 725) and Cú Chuimne of Iona (died 747). Since the pioneering article of R. Thurneysen, "Zur irischen Kanonensammlung", in Zeitschrift für Celtische Philologie 6 (1907–1908), pp. 1–5, it has been assumed by many scholars that this colophon provides the names of the compilers of the Hibernensis; and, based on Ruben's known obit, it has been deduced that the Hibernensis cannot date to later than 725. However, as Sven Meeder notes, the colophon merely mentions the names of two men, and leaves "many uncertainties regarding the details of their involvement" in the production of the work itself; S. Meeder, "The spread and reception of Hiberno-Latin scholarship on the Continent in the eighth and ninth centuries" (unpubl. PhD diss., University of Cambridge, 2010), p. 71, and see also D.N. Dumville, "Ireland, Brittany, and England: transmission and use of Collectio canonum Hibernensis", in Irlande et Bretagne: vingt siècles d’histoire. Actes du Colloque de Rennes (29–31 Mars 1993), eds C. Laurent and H. Davis, Essais 7 (Rennes, 1994), pp. 84–95, at p. 86. For a thorough consideration of the identities of Ruben and Cú Chuimne, including their possible political and ideological affiliations, see B. Jaski, "Cú Chuimne, Ruben, and the compilation of the Collectio canonum Hibernensis", in Peritia 14 (2000), pp. 51–69. is the earliest work known to have drawn on the Paenitentiale Theodori tradition, relying on none other than the Capitula Dacheriana version.Charles-Edwards, "Penitential", p. 142. From this it appears that the Capitula Dacheriana was assembled perhaps as early as a decade after Theodore's death (in 690), and certainly no later than the first quarter of the eighth century. It was very possibly compiled in Ireland (though possibly instead in an Anglo-Irish or Breton milieux), and was used shortly after its creation as a source for the Collectio canonum Hibernensis, which would itself (even very soon after its creation) go on to influence powerfully the developing canon law and penitential traditions in Francia.
Canones Gregorii
Canones Basilienses
Canones Cottoniani
Paenitentiale Umbrense The Paenitentiale Umbrense is a selection of canons from the earlier Capitula Dacheriana, Canones Gregorii, Canones Cottoniani and Canones Basilienses, along with additional Theodorian judgments that were obtained by a mysterious figure named Eoda Christianus. As we learn in the preface to the Paenitentiale Umbrense, these latter judgments were proffered by the Archbishop in answer to questions raised by rulings found in a certain "Irish document" (libellus Scottorum), a work that is commonly believed to be the Paenitentiale Cummeani. All of this material has been arranged by the author of the Paenitentiale Umbrense according to topic, with occasional commentary and additional rulings added in by the author of the Paenitentiale Umbrense himself. The Paenitentiale Umbrense is thus far more organized than its predecessors, and — owing to its contents derived from Eoda and the libellus Scottorum — also includes more content that is strictly "penitential" in nature.
The identity of the author is controversial. In the prologue (or rather dedicatory letter) to the Paenitentiale Umbrense the author identifies himself as a discipulus Umbrensium, "a student of the [North]umbrians". Whether this identifies the authors nationality, or merely his academic affiliation, is unclear, and several interpretations of its meaning have been advanced. Felix Liebermann believed that the discipulus was an Irish disciple of Theodore,F. Liebermann, "Zur Herstellung der Canones Theodori Cantuariensis", in Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte: Kanonistische Abteilung 12 (1922), 387–410, at p. 401. while Paul Finsterwalder argued that the discipulus was a man, Irish-born though trained in Anglo-Saxon schools, who worked on the Continent, probably within the context of Willibrord's Continental mission.Finsterwalder, ed., Die Canones, pp. 155–74. A year after they were published Finsterwalder's conclusions were roundly rejected by Wilhelm Levison, who argued that the Paenitentiale Umbrense was the work of an Anglo-Saxon working in England.See W. Levison's review of Finsterwalder's Die Canones in Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte: Kanonistische Abteilung 19 (1930), pp. 699–707, reprinted as "Zu den Canones Theodori Cantuariensis", in Aus rheinischer und fränkischer Frühzeit. Ausgewählte Aufsätze von Wilhelm Levison (Düsseldorf, 1948), pp. 295–303. Scholars since have generally sided with Levison in viewing the Paenitentiale Umbrense as the product of Anglo-Saxon England, and more specifically of a student working in Northumbria.
The Paenitentiale Umbrense survives in two forms: a Full Form and a Half Form. The Full Form is clearly the more original work, the Half Form being simply the last fourteen topics or chapters or the Full Form. The Full Form itself survives in slightly different versions. In the earliest of these the work is divided into twenty-nine chapters (though the Fulda Recension [discussed below] divides the work slightly differently and into twenty-eight chapters).The earliest extant copy of the Full Form (W7) is not a twenty-nine chapter work, but rather a forty-nine chapter work, the last twenty of which are not Theodorian canons at all but actually comprise the full text of the Libellus responsionum. This arrangement of the text appears to be a later development, the Libellus responsionum was likely not "packaged" with the Paenitentiale Umbrense until the latter worked was later brought into the orbit of Boniface's circle on the Continent; on which see below, Reception. . These are:
1: On drunkenness 2: On fornication 3: On theft (avaritia furtiva) 4: On manslaughter 5: On heretics (lit. "those deceived by heresy") 6: On perjury 7: On diverse evils, and on actions that are not culpable because necessary or accidental (quae non nocent necessari) 8: On the ways in which clerics can do wrong 9: On those who should be laicized, and those who cannot be ordained 10: On the twice-baptized and how they may do penance 11: On those who do not honor the Lord's day and hold ecclesiastical fasts in contempt 12: On Eucharistic communion and the sacrifice 13: On the public reconciliation of penitents 14: On penance specific to those in Christian marriage 15: On the worship of idols and demons 16: On church administration and church-building 17: On the three principal ecclesiastical grades (i.e. bishops, priests and deacons) 18: On ordinations (of bishops, priests, deacons, monks, abbots, abbesses, nuns, virgins, widows, etc.) 19: On baptism and confirmation 20: On the mass for the dead 21: On abbots, monks and the monastery 22: On rites performable by women, and on their ministry in the church 23: On different customs among Greeks and Romans 24: On the communion of the Irish and British, who do not keep Easter or the tonsure according to Catholic custom 25: On the mentally ill (lit. "those troubled by a devil") 26: On the use and avoidance of animals for food 27: On questions pertaining to marriage 28: On servants 29: On diverse questions