Zgodovinski Z | Ljubljana | 79 | 2025 | št. 3-4 (172) | str. 233–469 HISTORICAL REVIEW Matic Kristan, Usury in the Summa of Monaldus: Sources, Composition, and Intentions of a 13th Century Encyclopedia of Law • Svit Podgornik, Oborožitev in obramba samostanov kontemplativnih redov na slovenskem za as turških vpadov • Lucija Pe nik, Ženska v blejskem gospostvu v poznem 17. stoletju: analiza zvezanih sodnih zapisnikov • Sonja Svoljšak, Knjižnica Družbe za kmetijstvo in uporabne umetnosti na Kranjskem in za etki licejske knjižnice • Jan Župani , Gender and Ennobelment in the Austrian Empire. The Transformation of the Nobility in the Context of the Women’s Question • Endre Domonkos and András Schlett, The „New Course” and its impacts in Central and Eastern Europe: The case of Hungary • David Hazemali, Dominik Herle, Žana Pleji in Matjaž Klemen i , Slovenska kapela v Washingtonu D. C.: Zgodovina nastanka in njen kulturni, politi ni in verski pomen za Slovence in slovensko-ameriško skupnost asopis ZČ | Ljubljana | 79 | 2025 | št. 3-4 (172) | str. 233–469 HISTORICAL REVIEW Izdaja ZVEZA ZGODOVINSKIH DRUŠTEV SLOVENIJE Ljubljana Zgodovinski časopis ISSN 0350-5774 UDK 949.712(05) UDC Zgodovinski HISTORICAL REVIEW časopis GLASILO ZVEZE ZGODOVINSKIH DRUŠTEV SLOVENIJE Mednarodni uredniški odbor: dr. Kornelija Ajlec (SI), dr. Tina Bahovec (SI), dr. Bojan Balkovec (SI) (tehnični urednik), dr. Rajko Bratož (SI), dr. Ernst Bruckmüller (AT), dr. Liliana Ferrari (IT), dr. Ivo Goldstein (HR), dr. Žarko Lazarević (SI), dr. Dušan Mlacović (SI) (namestnik odgovornega urednika), dr. Božo Repe (SI), dr. Franc Rozman (SI), Janez Stergar (SI), dr. Imre Szilágyi (H), dr. Peter Štih (SI) (odgovorni urednik), dr. Marta Verginella (SI), dr. Peter Vodopivec (SI), dr. Marija Wakounig (AT) Za vsebino prispevkov so odgovorni avtorji, prav tako morajo poskrbeti za avtorske pravice za objavljeno slikovno in drugo gradivo, v kolikor je to potrebno. Ponatis člankov in slik je mogoč samo z dovoljenjem uredništva in navedbo vira. Redakcija tega zvezka je bila zaključena 15. oktober 2025. Oblikovanje in oprema: Vesna Vidmar Sedež uredništva in uprave: Oddelek za zgodovino Filozofske fakultete v Ljubljani, Aškerčeva 2, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenija, tel.: (01) 241-1200, e-pošta: info@zgodovinskicasopis.si; http://www.zgodovinskicasopis.si Letna naročnina: za leto/letnik 2025: za nečlane in zavode 32 €, za društvene člane 24 €, za društvene člane – upokojence 18 €, za društvene člane – študente 12 €. Cena tega zvezka v prosti prodaji je 16 € (z vključenim DDV). Naročnina za tujino znaša za ustanove 45 €, za posameznike 35 € in za študente 25 €. Plačuje se na transakcijski račun: SI 56020 1 000 12083935 Zveza Zgodovinskih društev Slovenije, Aškerčeva 2, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenija Nova Ljubljanska banka, d.d., Trg Republike 2, 1520 Ljubljana LJBASI2X Sofi nancirajo: Publikacija izhaja s fi nančno pomočjo Javne agencije za raziskovalno dejavnost RS Prelom: ABO grafi ka d.o.o. – zanjo Igor Kogelnik Tisk: ABO grafi ka d.o.o., Ljubljana, december 2025 Naklada: 500 izvodov Zgodovinski časopis je evidentiran v naslednjih mednarodnih podatkovnih bazah: Scopus, European Reference Index for the Humanities (ERIH), Historical Abstracts, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, ABC CLIO, America: History and Life, Bibliography of the History of Art, Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory, Russian Academy of Sciences Bibliographies. http://www.zgodovinskicasopis.si info@zgodovinskicasopis.si BULLETIN OF THE HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION OF SLOVENIA (HAS) International Editorial Board: Kornelija Ajlec, PhD, (SI), Tina Bahovec, PhD, (SI), Bojan Balkovec, PhD, (SI) (Tehnical Editor), Rajko Bratož, PhD, (SI), Ernst Bruckmüller, PhD, (AT), Liliana Ferrari, PhD, (IT), Ivo Goldstein, PhD, (HR), Žarko Lazarević, PhD, (SI), Dušan Mlacović, PhD, (SI) (Deputy Editor-in-Charge), Božo Repe, PhD, (SI), Franc Rozman, PhD, (SI), Janez Stergar (SI), Imre Szilágyi, PhD, (H), Peter Štih, PhD, (SI) (Editor-in-Chief), Marta Verginella, PhD, (SI), Peter Vodopivec, PhD, (SI), Marija Wakounig, PhD, (AT) The authors are responsible for the contents of their articles, they must also secure copyrights for the published photographs and fi gures when necessary. Reprints of articles, photographs, and graphic material are only allowed with explicit permission of the editorial offi ce and must be cited as sources. The editing of this issue was completed on October 15, 2025. Design: Vesna Vidmar Headquarters and Mailing Address: Oddelek za zgodovino Filozofske fakultete v Ljubljani, Aškerčeva 2, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia, phone: +386 1 241-1200, e-mail: info@zgodovinskicasopis.si; http://www.zgodovinskicasopis.si Annual Subscription Fee (for 2025): non-members and institutions 32 €, HAS members 24 €, retired HAS members 18 €, student HAS members 12 €. Price: 16 € (VAT included). Subscription Fee: foreign institutions 45 €, individual subscription 35 €, student subscription 25 € Transaction Account Number: SI 56020 1 000 12083935 Zveza Zgodovinskih društev Slovenije, Aškerčeva 2, 1000 Ljubljana, Nova Ljubljanska banka, d.d., Trg Republike 2, 1520 Ljubljana LJBASI2X Co-Financed by: Slovenian Research Agency Printed by: ABO grafi ka d.o.o., Ljubljana, December 2025 Print Run: 500 copies Historical Review is included in the following international databases: Scopus, European Reference Index for the Humanities (ERIH), Historical Abstracts, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, ABC CLIO, America: History and Life, Bibliography of the History of Art, Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory, Russian Academy of Sciences Bibliographies. http://www.zgodovinskicasopis.si info@zgodovinskicasopis.si ISSN 0350-5774 UDK 949.712(05) UDC Zgodovinski HISTORICAL REVIEW časopis KAZALO – CONTENTS Razprave – Studies Matic Kristan, Usury in the Summa of Monaldus: Sources, Composition, and Intentions of a 13th Century Encyclopedia of Law .................240–264 Oderuštvo v Monaldovi Summi: viri, sestava in nameni pravne enciklopedije iz 13. stoletja Svit Podgornik, Oborožitev in obramba samostanov kontemplativnih redov na slovenskem za čas turških vpadov .................................266–291 The Armament and Defence of Monasteries of Contemplative Orders in Slovenia during the Ottoman Incursion Lucija Pečnik, Ženska v blejskem gospostvu v poznem 17. stoletju: analiza zvezanih sodnih zapisnikov ..........................292–333 Women in the Seigneury of Bled/Veldes in the Late 17th Century: Analysis of Bound Court Minutes Sonja Svoljšak, Knjižnica Družbe za kmetijstvo in uporabne umetnosti na Kranjskem in začetki licejske knjižnice ..................334–354 The Library of the Society for Agriculture and Applied Arts in Carniola and the Beginnings of the Lyceum Library Jan Županič, Gender and Ennobelment in the Austrian Empire . The Transformation of the Nobility in the Context of the Women’s Question ..............................................................356–377 Spol in podeljevanje plemiških naslovov v Avstrijskem cesarstvu. Preobrazba plemstva v kontekstu vprašanja žensk Endre Domonkos and András Schlett, The „New Course” and its impacts in Central and Eastern Europe: The case of Hungary ...................378–407 „Nova smer” in njeni vplivi v srednji in vzhodni Evropi: primer Madžarske David Hazemali, Dominik Herle, Žana Plejić in Matjaž Klemenčič, Slovenska kapela v Washingtonu D. C.: Zgodovina nastanka in njen kulturni, politični in verski pomen za Slovence in slovensko-ameriško skupnost ........................................................408–438 The Slovenian Chapel in Washington, D.C.: The History of Its Foundation and Its Cultural, Political, and Religious Signifi cance for Slovenians and the Slovenian-American Community V spomin – In memoriam Zaslužnemu profesorju Univerze v Ljubljani dr. Miroslavu Stiplovšku v spomin (Dušan Nečak) ...............................................................440–442 In memory of Professor Emeritus of the University of Ljubljana, Dr. Miroslav Stiplovšek Kongresi in simpoziji – Congresses, Symposia 41. zborovanje Zveze zgodovinskih društev Slovenije; Brežice, 1.–2. oktober 2025 (Brina Kotar) ..................................................444–445 41st Congress of the Association of Historical Societies of Slovenia; Brežice, 1–2 October 2025 Ocene in poročila – Reviews and Reports Marjeta Šašel Kos, V srcu rimskega imperija: zgodovina slovenskega prostora v antiki do vlade Maksimina Tračana (Rok Ribič) .........448–452 Jože Maček, Zgodovina slovenskega agrarnega prebivalstva (Nikita Peresin Meden) .................................................................453–455 Hranimo misli že 250 let, razstava (maj 2024–februar 2025) in katalog Narodne in univerzitetne knjižnice (Anja Dular) .........456–458 Julij Savelli, 1945: Dnevnik mojega križevega pota (Špela Chomicki) ..........................................................................459–461 * * * Navodila avtorjem prispevkov za Zgodovinski časopis ...........................462–465 Instructions for Authors Letno kazalo Zgodovinskega časopisa 79, 2025 ......................................466–469 Annual Content of Zgodovinski časopis – Historical Review 79, 2025 Razprave M. KRISTAN: Usury in the Summa of Monaldus: Sources, Composition, and Intentions of ...240 KRISTAN, Matic, MA in History, Assist., Young Researcher, University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Arts, Department of History, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Aškerčeva 2, matic.kristan@ff .uni-lj.si ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7956-4794 Usury in the Summa of Monaldus: Sources, Composition, and Intentions of a 13th Century Encyclopedia of Law Zgodovinski časopis, (Historical Review), Ljubljana 79/2025, No. 3-4, pp. 240–264, 85 notes. Language: En. (Sn., En., Sn.) CC BY-SA The Summa of Monaldus is the fi rst encyclopedia of law. Monaldus introduced the alphabetical order of entries, subsections and itemization of paragraphs. The analysis of the entry on usury shows that the bulk of the text is an integration of Raymond’s Summa and the corresponding William’s gloss. Some editorial decisions and additions refl ect Monaldus’s own legal thought. His emphasis on the lender’s intention reveals somewhat lenient views of usury compared to some of his predecessors. Moreover, we can see a general tendency to make the text as accessible as possible. Monaldus omits obscure legal concepts and replaces lesser-known placenames with those familiar to his readers. He quotes only the essential sources, omitting other citations. This approach matches his declared wish to improve knowledge of the law, especially among the “simple”. Keywords: Monaldus, usury, canon law, medieval law, summa KRISTAN, Matic, mag. prof. zgod., asist., mladi raziskovalec, Univerza v Ljubljani, Filo- zofska fakulteta, Oddelek za zgodovino, SI-1000, Aškerčeva 2, matic.kristan@ff .uni-lj.si ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7956-4794 Oderuštvo v Monaldovi Summi: viri, sestava in nameni pravne enciklopedije iz 13. stoletja Zgodovinski časopis, Ljubljana 79/2025, št. 3-4, str. 240–264, 85 cit. 1.01 Izvirni znanstveni članek: jezik En. (Sn., En., Sn.) CC BY-SA Monaldova Summa je prva enciklopedija prava. Monald je uvedel abecedni vrstni red gesel, pod- gesla in itemizacijo paragrafov. Analiza gesla o oderuštvu kaže, da večino besedila predstavlja integracija Rajmondove Summe in pripadajoče Viljemove glose. Nekatere uredniške odločitve in dodatki kažejo Monaldovo lastno pravno misel. Njegovo poudarjanje namena posojilodajalca nakazuje nekoliko milejše poglede na oderuštvo v primerjavi z njegovimi predhodniki. Prav tako lahko opazimo splošno težnjo po tem, da bi bese- dilo napravil karseda dostopno. Monald izpušča obskurne pravne koncepte in nadomešča manj znana krajevna imena s tistimi, ki bi bila znana njegovim bralcem. Citira le temeljne vire in izpušča druge citate. Ta pristop se ujema z njegovo izrecno izraženo željo, da bi izboljšal poznavanje prava, zlasti med »preprostimi«. Ključne besede: Monald, oderuštvo, kanonsko pravo, srednjeveško pravo, summa Matic Kristan Usury in the Summa of Monaldus: Sources, Composition, and Intentions of a 13th Century Encyclopedia of Law Introduction1 Monaldus of Koper/Capodistria was a Friar Minor who in the 13th century authored the fi rst encyclopedia of law.2 It contains 286 entries (tractatus) which are, and this was arguably the crucial innovation, arranged alphabetically.3 The work is generally known as Summa de iure canonico;4 it will henceforth be referred to as Summa for short. It survives in at least 70 manuscripts,5 a testament to its popularity. Various areas of the law are addressed: Church law, procedural, civil, public and criminal law as well as general legal concepts. The present article will analyze the »genesis« of the Summa of Monaldus. What this means is that we will attempt to identify the sources Monaldus drew upon for the content of his Summa, the editorial choices he made in composing it and the intentions with which he set out to write the work. Since the Summa is quite voluminous, the scope of this article inevitably must be limited. We will focus on a single entry, namely the one on usury (De usura). Consequently, our conclusions will necessarily be valid only for the entry in question: it is important to keep in mind that this represents only 3 percent of the total text.6 However, the entry of usury is among the more substantial ones of the Summa.7 We can reasonably expect that the conclusions will be at least somewhat representative of the entire work. 1 The present article is based on the master’s thesis I defended in 2024: Kristan, “Oderuštvo v Monaldovi Summi.” I would like here to once again express my gratitude to the many people who off ered their advice while I was writing the thesis. Additionally, I would like to thank my colleague Manja Uršič for revising the text of this article. 2 “Encyclopedia” is defi ned here as a work that provides a comprehensive overview of a fi eld and is divided into discrete entries arranged by alphabetical order. 3 The number is based on the printed 16th century edition of the work: Monaldus, Summa perutilis atque aurea. 4 The title is not consistent across manuscripts, but it commences with the phrase Summa de iure canonico at least in Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana, Ott. lat. 630; Narodna in univerzitetna knjižnica (Ljubljana), Ms. 33; and Grootseminarie (Brugges), Ms. 45/144. 5 Brancale, “Indice analitico,” the only list of manuscripts for the Summa published so far, lists 65 manuscripts. At least fi ve must be added to the list: Narodna in univerzitetna knji- žnica, Ms. 33 (Ljubljana); Berkeley Library (University of California), Robbins 79; Grey’s Inn Library, Ms. 116 (London); Basel University Library, Ms. C V 38; and Bibliothè que Municipale (Luxembourg), 103. The fi nal number could be substantially higher still. 6 Calculated using Monaldus, Summa perutilis atque aurea. 7 The fi fth longest, to be precise. The only longer entries are the ones on marriage (20 folios), restitution (15 folios), excommunication (15 folios) and simony (12 folios). Most entries Zgodovinski časopis | 79 | 2025 | 3-4 | (172) | 240–264 241 M. KRISTAN: Usury in the Summa of Monaldus: Sources, Composition, and Intentions of ...242 One of the main problems, as with many other medieval texts, is the absence of a critical edition. The only printed edition of the Summa, published in 1516, is textually so faulty that it is safer to work with a good manuscript when dealing with the text in-depth. Our master’s thesis, which also forms the basis of this article, inclu- ded a critical text of the Monaldus’s entry on usury. There, we introduced numbering of sections and paragraphs, a measure which is not present in the Summa itself but seemed necessary if De usura was to be discussed in detail. At the beginning of indi- vidual paragraphs, there are footnotes identifying the sources Monaldus used. Where no source is listed, we currently presume the text to be Monaldus’s original writing. It is this critical text that will be referenced throughout the article. While it cannot be reproduced here in its entirety, it is freely accessible on the university website.8 Monaldus as a historical personality The topic of Monaldus as a historical personality has seen some discussion. Collected papers published by the Franciscan province of Venice in 1982 include important basic research, including an index of manuscripts of the Summa,9 an extensive historical bibliography starting from the earliest attestations of Monaldus10 and a bioanthropological analysis of his remains.11 Nataša Golob off ers important insight from a codicological perspective in her catalogue of selected Slovene ma- nuscripts.12 Collected papers published in Koper in 2013 bring a detailed analysis of a manuscript of the Summa held by the National and University Library in Slovenia13 and an overview of his work from a canonist perspective.14 The most recent study of the biography of Monaldus is an article by Ana Jenko Kovačič.15 Finer points of the prosopography of Monaldus cannot be repeated here in detail, but it seems useful to present at least the basic facts. In 1257, Monaldus is attested in a parchment from Trieste as the Provincial Minister of Friars Minor:16 this is the only contemporary attestation known so far. In 1285, the canonist Peter John Olivi mentions Monaldus as deceased. Bioanthropological analysis of his remains has shown that he died aged around 70 years, so he was most likely born in the 1210s.17 The Summa itself is usually dated between 1254 and 1274 since are substantially shorter; some are just a paragraph long. The count is based on Monaldus, Summa perutilis atque aurea. 8 Kristan, “Oderuštvo v Monaldovi Summi,” pp. 80–116. Available on the online repository of University of Ljubljana (https://repozitorij.uni-lj.si/IzpisGradiva.php?id=160653&lang=eng). 9 Brancale, “Indice analitico.” 10 Decarli, “Saggio di bibliografi a.” 11 Busoni et al., “Lo scheletro.” 12 Golob, Manuscripta, p. 177. 13 Golob, “Monaldova pravna enciklopedija.” 14 Papež, “Summa de iure canonico.” 15 Jenko Kovačič, “Opombe.” 16 Parentin, “Tre pergamene.” 17 Busoni et al., “Lo scheletro.” His remains were formerly kept in Koper/Capodistria (Slovenia) but were transferred to Venice after the Second World War. They are currently placed on a side altar of the Church of Santa Maria Maggiore in Trieste. Zgodovinski časopis | 79 | 2025 | 3-4 | (172) 243 it includes some decrees of Pope Innocent IV († 1254), while no decisions of the Second Council of Lyon (1274) seem to be refl ected in the text.18 It must also be emphasized that Monaldus is often confused with some of his namesakes, even in newer literature: with Monaldus, martyr of Ancona († 1288); Monaldus, bishop of Melfi († 1330); and Monaldus, archbishop of Benevento († 1331). Without going into details here, it is Monaldus of Koper who best fi ts the author of the Summa. As we have already seen, Peter John Olivi speaks of Monaldus as deceased in 1285, before the deaths of all other Monaldi; he also says Monaldus was a provincial minister of Friars Minor, which other Monaldi were not.19 The earliest source connecting Monaldus to Koper is from the 14th century: Bartholo- mew of Pisa († 1401) explicitly stated that the author of the Summa is buried in Koper.20 This does not necessarily mean he was a native of Koper; however, in the absence of other evidence, it is best to presume that he was. Not much can be added to these few biographical data points without specu- lating. However, it would be worthwhile addressing the question of Monaldus’s education. Since magister scolarum is attested in Koper in 1186, he could have attained primary education there.21 It is obvious from his work that he had extensive legal education, and since the universities of northern Italy were already active in his youth, we assume he also studied at a university. There has been some questi- on as to whether Monaldus joined the Friars Minor fi rst and was sent to study by the Order or became a Friar Minor while already studying.22 We would argue that the latter is perhaps more likely. We lack defi nite proof that monasteries of Friars Minor were already established in Istria when Monaldus was an adolescent; on the other hand, multiple sources mention that mendicant orders preached to students in northern Italian cities and converted them so to speak en masse.23 The chronicler Archdeacon Thomas of Split mentions that as a student in Bologna in 1222, he listened to a sermon by St Francis himself.24 It has generally been presumed that Monaldus studied at Padua, mostly due to its geographical proximity to Istria.25 We would argue that Bologna cannot be ruled out either. Judging by the fact that the average age of a medieval university student was about 20 years,26 Monaldus probably began studying in the 1230s, which was a turbulent time for universities of the region. Confl icts arose between the univer- sity of Bologna and the city commune, which was trying to bind the university to itself.27 Around 1200, students and professors started leaving Bologna for other 18 von Schulte, Geschichte der Quellen, p. 417. 19 Jenko Kovačič, “Opombe.” 20 Decarli, “Saggio di bibliografi a,” pp. 131–133. 21 Kandler, Codice diplomatico istriano I, 24 October 1186. 22 Jenko Kovačič, “Opombe,” p. 192. 23 Rashdall, Universities of Europe II, p. 11, fn. 1; p. 13, fn. 1. 24 Škunca, Povijesni pregled, pp. 16–18. 25 Jenko Kovačič, “Opombe,” p. 192. 26 Grendler, Universities of Italian Renaissance, p. 4. 27 On origins of the university of Padua see Rashdall, Universities of Europe I, pp. 172–173, and Rashdall, Universities of Europe II, pp. 10–14. M. KRISTAN: Usury in the Summa of Monaldus: Sources, Composition, and Intentions of ...244 cities.28 However, early universities were not homogenous institutions: individual groups were the ones that moved, not entire bodies of students and professors. It is conventionally believed that the university of Bologna moved to Padua in 1222 (as is noted in the offi cial chronicle of Padua). However, this relocation could not have been total since the university of Bologna continued to function. Moreover, in 1228, the university of Padua already reached an agreement with the city of Vercelli to relocate there for eight years: again, evidently, not all students and professors followed this agreement. In the time of the Ezzelini (1237–1260), university of Padua seems to have temporarily ceased to function altogether. All this to say that the university of Padua was not yet well-established in this period and that it is at least equally likely, if not more likely, that Monaldus studied at Bologna. It is tempting to connect Monaldus to St Anthony of Padua (1195–1231), who was very active in the period in which Monaldus must have studied. However, St Anthony founded his school in Bologna, not Padua, and anyway could not have lectured much himself, considering he traveled often. St Anthony is named after Padua only because he spent the last years of his life there – it is not attested that he lectured in Padua.29 If we would like to connect Monaldus to the school of St Anthony, which is not unreasonable, we would again have to connect him to Bo- logna, not Padua. A topic that has remained underdiscussed is the actual contents of the Summa. So far, individual aspects have mostly been discussed within comprehensive monographies on wider historical topics, but mostly in passing and on a surface level. Von Schulte in his exhaustive overview of sources for medieval canon law discusses Monaldus, but misidentifi es him as the martyr of Ancona.30 Noonan men- tions Monaldus multiple times in his book on usury, which remains the standard treatment of the topic from the point of view of the history of ideas.31 However, he places Monaldus among writers active after Thomas Aquinas, which seems out of place considering Monaldus and he were practically contemporaries.32 Noonan also mistakenly claims that Monaldus did not condemn usury on the basis of natural law:33 Monaldus does precisely that in paragraph 3.9, where he equates selling at a time when goods are more expensive to selling time itself. He also mentions na- tural law in paragraphs 3.19 and 3.43. Langholm touches upon ideas of Monaldus in his survey of medieval economic thought; he was also the fi rst one to mention explicitly that the printed edition contains interpolations.34 Todeschini discusses Monaldus in his analysis of Franciscan economic thought.35 The only contributi- 28 Hyde, “Commune, University, and Society,” pp. 42–43. 29 Huber, St. Anthony of Padua, pp. 12–13. 30 von Schulte, Geschichte der Quellen, p. 414. 31 See index in Noonan, Scholastic Analysis of Usury, p. 426. 32 Noonan, Scholastic Analysis of Usury, p. 58. He dates the death of Monaldus to 1228 (with a question mark). Presumably, this is a misprint and Noonan actually meant 1288, which means he misidentifi ed Monaldus as the martyr of Ancona, who died in 1288. 33 Noonan, Scholastic Analysis of Usury, p. 58. 34 Langholm, Economics in the Medieval Schools, pp. 447–449. 35 Todeschini, Ricchezza francescana, pp. 86–88. Zgodovinski časopis | 79 | 2025 | 3-4 | (172) 245 on that focuses on a specifi c aspect of the Summa from the point of view of legal history is the treatment of the entry on pledges by Žepič.36 The Summa and its sources The High Middle Ages are conventionally seen as a renaissance of legal studies. The Corpus Iuris Civilis, the most important corpus of Roman law dating from the reign of Emperor Justinian, was by then well known and studied in Italy. The law of the Church was yet to be organized to a comparable degree.37 Perhaps the fi rst substantial step in this long process was the Decretum of Gratian (compiled in the 1140s); the second crucial step was the collection generally known as Liber extra (1234) compiled by St Raymond of Penyafort. This development can be seen as a response to societal and economic changes: new times called for new norms. It is Wickham’s thesis that the bulk of the economic shift towards commercialization in northern Italy is to be dated to no earlier than the 13th century;38 if this thesis holds, it would place the work of St Raymond as well as Monaldus right in the period of the most intensive economic shift of medieval Europe. The Summa of Monaldus is a compilation, as the author states explicitly in the prologue: Opiniones itaque antiquorum doctorum et etiam aliquorum modernorum humiliter prosecutus, quamvis plura diversimode sint ab ipsis notata, quae inter se varietatem ostendere videantur, non tamen ausus sum scripta tantorum virorum praesumptuose respuere, sed ea, licet diversa, circa unam et eandem materiam in praesenti opusculo studiose conscribens duxi hoc discretis lectoribus relinquendum, ut illam oppinionem accipiant, quae ipsis videtur esse magis consona rationi. “I therefore humbly followed the opinions of old teachers as well as some modern ones, although they wrote some things diff erently, so that they seem to exhibit variety. I still did not dare to presumptuously reject the writings of such men. Instead, in this trifl ing work, I diligently collected them around the same subject, even though they may be diff erent. I believed it must be left to individual readers to accept the opinion which to them seems more harmonious with reason.” Who were the teachers Monaldus humbly followed? The citations he provides in his text mostly refer to passages of Corpus Iuris Civilis, Decretum of Gratian or Liber Extra. However, Monaldus most likely did not work with these collections in their original form, at least not much. The text of his Summa seems to mostly stem from secondary legal literature. His main source was without a doubt Summa casuum conscientiae by the aforementioned Raymond. At least as far as De usura is concerned, Raymond’s text was the framework upon which Monaldus based his own: we can estimate 36 Žepič, “Monald Koprski.” 37 For an overview of canon law in this period, see Hartmann and Pennington, History. 38 Wickham, Donkey and the Boat, 465–620 (the chapter on northern Italy), especially 612–620 (conclusions of the chapter). M. KRISTAN: Usury in the Summa of Monaldus: Sources, Composition, and Intentions of ...246 that about a third of De usura is transferred directly from the corresponding entry in Raymund.39 Monaldus also used the standard gloss to the Summa of Raymond, authored by William of Rennes (Guillelmus Redonensis).40 He included it more or less in its entirety (see below, chapter Integration of Raymond’s Summa and Wil- liam’s gloss).41 Text from William’s gloss constitutes approximately another third of De usura. Another identifi able source is Summa super rubricis decretalium by Godfrey of Trani († 1245).42 About fi ve paragraphs of De usura can be attributed to Godfrey, and explicit attribution to Godfrey is given towards the end of the text. Less clear is the relationship of the Summa of Monaldus to the Summa aurea (1210–1220) of William of Auxerre (1160–1229).43 It is certain that Monaldus was acquainted with his ideas and included them in his Summa. However, unlike his other sources, he mostly did not transfer the text of William's Summa word for word. Passages of Monaldus referring to William’s ideas seem to be very condensed summaries of the original text. The reason for this decision could be the highly for- malized structure of William’s Summa, which is sectioned into questions, arguments and counterarguments, in line with the classic structure of scholastic quaestiones. The other sources Monaldus used are less interested in laying out the argument in this way, and it is possible that Monaldus felt the need to adapt William’s text to a greater degree so that it would fi t in with his other sources. Another possible explanation could be that Monaldus did not use William’s text in its original form but rather a derivative work not yet identifi ed. It has been argued that Monaldus also drew upon the Summa aurea of Henry Hostiensis († 1271):44 Noonan went as far as saying that Monaldus usually fol- lowed him.45 However, there is nothing in the text suggesting Monaldus used the Summa of Hostiensis. Similarities can all be explained by common sources, i.e. Raymond, William of Rennes and Godfrey. The explicit citation of Hostiensis in the printed edition of Monaldus from 151646 (in between paragraphs 5.9 and 5.10 of the critical text) is an interpolation absent in the oldest manuscripts. It probably found its way into the text via a gloss, either accidentally or even intentionally; after all, in the prologue, Monaldus himself invited the reader to improve his text. An interesting detail can be found in the edition of Hostiensis printed in Ve- nice in 1586. It includes a gloss that appears to be identical to individual passages of Monaldus – the very ones we presume to be the original work of Monaldus.47 39 Based on a rudimentary counting of the lines in our critical text. 40 On William of Rennes see von Schulte, Geschichte der Quellen, pp. 413–414. 41 For the text of Raymond’s Summa along with William’s gloss, we consulted the 14th century manuscript Badische Landesbibliothek (Karlsruhe), Cod. Aug. perg. 139. 42 Early print edition: Godfrey of Trani, Summa perutilis. 43 On William of Auxerre, see Noonan, Scholastic Analysis of Usury, pp. 42–44. Early print edition of his work: William of Auxerre, Aurea doctoris acutissimi. 44 Early print edition: Hostiensis, Henrici de Segusio. 45 Noonan, Scholastic Analysis of Usury, p. 112, fn. 61. 46 Monaldus, Summa perutilis, f. 292r. 47 Hostiensis, Henrici de Segusio, p. 1612, fn. a; p. 1614, fn. c.; p. 1616, fn. d; p. 1624, fn. c.; p. 1630, fn. a. (continued on p. 1632). Zgodovinski časopis | 79 | 2025 | 3-4 | (172) 247 However, on the title page of the edition, these glosses are attributed not to Mo- naldus, but to a certain Martinus Abbas,48 supposedly a contemporary of the jurists Azo and Accursius (so 11th–12th centuries). As far as we know, "Martin the Abbot" is not attested elsewhere. He is probably to be explained as a phantom canonist who came about by misinterpretation of a manuscript of the Summa of Monaldus: for in the manuscripts, the name “Monaldus”, which appears in the prologue, is not written out in full but abbreviated as M. A medieval or early modern reader of such a manuscript could be forgiven for presuming the name of the author to be Martinus, a name much more common than Monaldus. Composition Improvements of structure The Summa of Monaldus is the fi rst legal summa to be arranged alphabetically and one of very early such works in general. Monaldus himself explicitly mentions alphabetical arrangement twice in the prologue (sub singulis litteris alphabeti). He was also aware of the novelty of this structure: “Let no one be wonder if the way of treatment is diff erent in this trifl ing work than in works by others.” (non ergo miretur aliquis, si modus agendi diversus est in hoc opusculo ab operibus aliorum). Alphabetization seems to have been a wider tendency in Monaldus’s time since alphabetized collections of exempla for sermons also appear in the same period.49 In previous canonist works, topics were arranged in a specifi c but opaque sequen- ce: transgressions against God, transgressions against neighbor, irregularities in religious life and then marriage.50 For example, Godrey and Raymond state in the preface of their treatment of usury that usury is placed immediately after theft (De furtis) simply because “usury diff ers little or nothing from theft” (usura parum vel nihil interest … inter furtum et rapinam). Monaldus omits this remark because he followed the alphabet. It is primarily because of the alphabetical order that we can consider the Summa of Monaldus a proper encyclopedia. Separation of content into discrete entries was nothing new and can already be observed in the Summa of Raymond. What Monaldus seems to have contributed is the further division into subsections, which are introduced by rubricated titles. While Raymond did not divide the entry on usury into subsections, he did intro- duce it by listing the topics he would treat. Monaldus seems to have used these announcements to divide the text into actual subsections, turning what was only an introductory note in Raymond into the formal structure of the text. The entire Summa probably has about 900 subsections.51 48 It is unclear whether Abbas is meant to signify the function of an abbot or a proper surname. 49 Grison, “Note in margine,” p. 342. 50 Grison, “Note in margine,” p. 341. 51 Judging by Golob, “Monaldova pravna enciklopedija,” p. 39, who counted 891 initials introducing new sections throughout the manuscript in Narodna in univerzitetna knjižnica. M. KRISTAN: Usury in the Summa of Monaldus: Sources, Composition, and Intentions of ...248 The entry De usura in the Summa of Monaldus is thus divided into six sub- sections. While the manuscripts are not in total agreement when it comes to their titles, the division of the text itself is unanimous. In our critical edition, they are as follows: - 1: “What is usury and what is it named after” (De usura quid sit et unde dicatur) - 2: “How many kinds of usury there are” (Quot sunt species usurae) - 3: “In which cases is usury allowed, and in which is it prohibited” (In quibus casibus usurae permittantur vel prohibentur) (by far the longest subsection) - 4: “How usurers and their heirs are to be obliged to make restitution” (Qualiter usurarii et heredes eorum ad restitutionem compelluntur) - 5: “On usury of pledges” (De usura pignorum) - 6: “Some cases in which, according to some, one can give money and is allowed to make profi t from it” (Quidam casus, in quibus secundum quosdam potest quis dare pecuniam suam et licite inde recipere lucrum) Most of the fi fth subsection, De usura pignorum, does not actually deal with usury of pledges. The topic is only addressed in the fi rst three paragraphs, after which follow some sort of miscellanea, a sequence of casuistic paragraphs discussing a variety of potential cases of usury. This miscellanea is not formally introduced as a subsection but is obviously separate. It is some sort of an afterthought to the central themes presented previously, adding content that does not fi t into any of the titled subsections. The text is further divided into paragraphs, which are introduced by a rubrica- ted symbol, as is the case in the sources Monaldus consulted. However, Monaldus introduced an additional marker for opening of a new paragraph, the word item (»also«), which by then was widely used in such contexts, but not in material Monaldus worked with. There was a good reason for the double marking. It could easily happen that the manuscript rubricator omitted the symbol by accident, po- tentially making the structure of the text less clear. This “itemization” required a further adjustment of the text, namely the elimi- nation of the word item in all other contexts except the beginnings of paragraphs, so as to avoid any confusion. We can observe this by comparing Monaldus 5.10 with his source for this passage, William’s gloss ad collegium.52 At the beginning of this passage, four types of persons connected to a usurer are listed. William in- troduces each of these four types with the word item. On the other hand, Monaldus only uses item for the fi rst type, which appears at the beginning of the paragraph, while introducing the other three types with similiter instead of item. In the entire entry on usury, Monaldus leaves the word item in the middle of a paragraph only a single time, when it appears in a direct quotation (1.2). 52 Badische Landesbibliothek (Karlsruhe), Cod. Aug. perg. 139, f. 164r. Zgodovinski časopis | 79 | 2025 | 3-4 | (172) 249 Integration of Raymond’s Summa and William’s gloss The core of De usura is formed by a synthesis of the corresponding entry of Raymond’s Summa (also titled De usura) and the accompanying gloss of William of Rennes. Most of the time, Monaldus transferred the text linearly, word for word along with the original citations. As already mentioned, Raymond and William represent about a third of Monaldus’s text each. Deviations from this core are rare. To achieve an integrated text, Monaldus had to insert William’s gloss into Raymond’s text. It was much more practical for the reader not to have to con- stantly shift from the text to the margin and back again. In this “emancipation” of William’s gloss, Monaldus usually placed shorter glosses immediately after the passage of Raymond they commented on, while placing the longer ones after the end of Raymond’s paragraph as new, independent paragraphs. This integration was not simply a matter of copying the passages in sequence – it was a fairly complicated intellectual endeavor. It must have required substan- tial planning in advance. Since Raymond and William do not always agree, it also required reconciling the two sources, revealing Monaldus's legal opinions. Let us provide concrete examples. Paragraph 4.42 addresses the practice of purchasing at a lower price in the time of harvest and selling at a higher price later on. Raymond simply condemns this practice as a mortal sin. However, in the gloss ad emunt, William of Rennes writes: “Master does not distinguish whether this is [made] out of greed or not, but his opinion is too harsh if understood without dis- tinction.” (Non distinguit magister, utrum ex cupiditate necne, sed nimis dura est eius sententia, si indistincte intelligatur.)53 Monaldus did not include this nuanced gloss but obviously agreed with it. He modifi ed Raymond’s text in accordance with the gloss by simply inserting “out of greed” (ex cupiditate) before the verb “they buy” (emunt), thus overriding Raymond’s harsh condemnation. A similar edit can be observed in paragraph 3.42. The original Raymond’s text condemned the exchange of older produce for newer one as usury. William in the gloss ad cuperent novam again mitigates this condemnation: Istos non audeo condemnare, si ad hoc mutuent, ut proximo subveniant, dummodo non auferant ei libertatem liberandi se interim solvendo veterem, vel si probabiliter dubitetur, utrum plus vel minus valitura sit tempore solutionis. Alias verum est, quod dicit magister.54 “I do not venture to condemn those who lend in order to help their neighbor, as long as they do not take from him the freedom to free himself by paying the old harvest; or if there is legitimate doubt as to whether the thing will be worth more or less than at the time of payment. Otherwise, what master says is true.” In this case too, Monaldus deviates from Raymond’s strictness and joins William’s opinion. He adds two exceptions provided by Godfrey: such an exchange 53 Badische Landesbibliothek (Karlsruhe), Cod. Aug. perg. 139, f. 160v. 54 Badische Landesbibliothek (Karlsruhe), Cod. Aug. perg. 139, f. 161r. M. KRISTAN: Usury in the Summa of Monaldus: Sources, Composition, and Intentions of ...250 is allowed if the harvest would have gone bad otherwise or if it is done as a favor. Afterwards (from dummodo to solutionis) Monaldus follows William of Rennes word for word – however, he leaves out the non audeo and does not in any way indicate that this is only William’s opinion. He also omits the last sentence of William which states that “master” is otherwise right. Paragraph 4.9 underwent a similar mitigation. It was Raymond’s opinion that if a usurer buys a thing with usurious money and then sells it to a third party, the third party is bound to restitute it. William of Rennes in his gloss ad restituere teneatur says this is only the case if the third party bought the thing with the inten- tion to profi t and also knew that it was originally obtained with usurious money.55 Monaldus incorporates the gloss as a fact, not just an alternative opinion by William. There are other cases where Monaldus did fi nd it necessary to preserve nuan- ce and diff erence of opinion (e.g. 4.8 and 5.16, which will be discussed later on). But the editorial decisions where Monaldus eliminates one opinion in favor of the other are particularly interesting because they reveal Monaldus's opinions on usury. It seems that when it came to condemning usury, Monaldus, just like William of Rennes, tended to err on the side of leniency. As far as technical aspects go, we can conclude that Monaldus integrated the two texts successfully. Only one major mistake appears. The text in paragraph 3.39 shows he failed to distinguish the beginning of William’s gloss ad enormiter from the end of the previous one, ad quod dixi, resulting in a jumbled paragraph making no contextual sense. Such a mistake could arise quite easily. In medieval manuscripts, the glosses on the margin were usually written one after another and distinguished only by the rubrics applied to the initial word of each gloss.56 Most likely, the rubricator of the manuscript Monaldus was using forgot to make a ru- bric at enormiter and Monaldus consequently took it as part of the previous gloss. Another passage that seems out of place is paragraph 3.20, originally William’s gloss ad Qui emunt.57 The corresponding Raymond’s passage appears much later in Monaldus, only in paragraph 3.31. The reason for this placement is unclear since 3.20 seems completely out of context there. Original contributions of Monaldus In De usura, there are some passages for which no source can be identifi ed. With the current state of knowledge, we can presume them to be Monaldus’s original contributions. However, it might yet come to light that these too are transferred from other sources. At the beginning of De usura, where usury is defi ned, Monaldus puts Raymond’s defi nition fi rst (1.1): usury is a profi t from a loan which is owed or exacted by contract. (ex mutuo lucrum pacto debitum vel exactum). Immediately afterwards (1.2), he formulates his own, somewhat expanded defi nition: 55 Badische Landesbibliothek (Karlsruhe), Cod. Aug. perg. 139, f. 162r. 56 Cf. Badische Landesbibliothek (Karlsruhe), Cod. Aug. perg. 139, f. 160v. 57 Badische Landesbibliothek (Karlsruhe), Cod. Aug. perg. 139, f. 159v. Zgodovinski časopis | 79 | 2025 | 3-4 | (172) 251 Item usura est, quicquid sorti accederet ex intentione corrupta a parte creditoris, qui non mutuasset principaliter nisi propter spem lucri. “Also. Usury is anything that is added to the principal out of corrupted intentions on the part of the creditor, who would not have given a loan in the fi rst place were it not for the expectation of profi t.” Monaldus seems to agree in this defi nition with Godfrey of Trani, except that Godfrey expressed it less concisely: Usura est quicquid sorti accedit (ut xiiii, q. iiii, Plerique). In hac descriptione addo intentione praecedente vel pacto. Sola enim spe vel expectatione vitium contrahitur usurarum (ut infra eo. c. i et c. Consuluit xiiii, q. iii, Si fenerarius). Quod intelligo verum esse, cum causa mutuandi principaliter ponitur in spe vel expectatione lucri sive emolumenti.58 “Usury is whatever is added to the principal [citation]. To this description I add ‘by preceding intention or contract.’ For the fault of usury is committed with hope or expectation itself [citation]. I believe this to be true when the reason for giving a loan is primarily placed in hope for or expectation of profi t or gain.” It is apparent from the defi nition Monaldus gives that he considered the intention of the creditor a prerequisite for usury, just as some other authors did. Monaldus upholds this defi nition consistently throughout De usura. In the same paragraph (1.2), Monaldus elaborates based on his defi nition that if a creditor receives more than the principal, he is only bound to make restitution if corrupt intentions were involved on his part. Monaldus’s classifi cation of types of usury also seems to be his own (2.2–5). Indirect and direct usury was already distinguished by William of Auxerre: however, Monaldus takes this classifi cation and elaborates it further. He divides direct usury into usury on the principal (usura sortis) and usury on usury (usura usurarum, i.e. compound interest). Within indirect usury, he distinguishes usury by agreement (cum pacto) and usury without agreement (sine pacto). In paragraph 2.4, “usury without contract” is divided into two types. In the fi rst type, the creditor makes it clear to the debtor that he will not make an agreement with him but expects the debtor to give him whatever amount he himself wishes. In the second type, nothing is said explicitly, but the creditor gave the loan with the primary intention of receiving usury. In paragraph 2.5, Monaldus divides “usury by contract” (usura conventionis), which here is best taken as a synonym for usura cum pacto. He distinguishes three types: the one where the principal and the profi t are stipulated in advance; the one where the principal is stipulated in advance while the profi t depends on success; and the one where the profi t is stipulated in advance while the principal is risked. 58 Godfrey of Trani, Summa perutilis, ff . 218v–219r. M. KRISTAN: Usury in the Summa of Monaldus: Sources, Composition, and Intentions of ...252 The list of cases in which usury is permitted (3.1–11) also seems to be con- structed by Monaldus. It is some kind of compromise between the seven cases listed by Godfrey and the ones listed by Raymond without numeration. In the fi rst two cases (benefi ce and damages for the guarantor), where Godfrey and Raymond match, Monaldus follows them as well. He places dowry third, like Raymond but unlike Godfrey, who placed it seventh. The fourth is damages in case of delay in bona fi de contracts, where Monaldus combines Godfrey’s and Raymond’s texts. The fi fth case is the lease contract, as is at Godfrey. The sixth is uncertainty, which in Raymond is placed fi fth: for uncertainty, Monaldus uses Raymond’s text (since Godfrey only named it without elaborating), but includes Godfrey’s term incerti- tudo alongside Raymond’s dubium. The seventh and last case is canon punishment, which in Godfrey is placed fourth. It is especially interesting that Monaldus adds a mnemonic verse for these seven cases (3.12): poena, fi des, dubium, mora, dos, violentia, donum. The verse, a hexameter, does not seem to appear elsewhere and can be attributed to Monaldus. It speaks to Monaldus’s signifi cant level of education that he was able to write correct Latin verse. Monaldus also seems to wish to penalize contumacy (contumacia), i.e. refu- sal to attend court appointments. Monaldus adds the circumstance of contumacy into two passages where his sources did not mention it: as a legitimate reason for taking interest (alongside damages and delay) in paragraph 3.45 and as a reason to increase judicial penalty for a usurer in paragraph 4.2. To list other passages which seem to be Monaldus’s own: - 3.10: if the debtor asks the creditor for an extension and gives him a gift, this is not usury so long as the creditor grants an extension primarily due to God or due to friendship and only secondarily due to self-interest. - 3.14: those who lend in the name of others are bound to make restitution if they lend under a general mandate of the owner. However, if the owner specifi cally orders them to lend to a certain individual, they are not bound. The two following paragraphs (3.15–16) also deal with the same topic, but stem from Raymond and William of Rennes. Monaldus seemingly did not fi nd them suffi cient and added his own introduction. - 3.17: at the end of the paragraph on lender’s intentions, Monaldus adds his own note that the lender may expect profi t from the loan secondarily, so long as he lends primarily due to God or due to friendship. - 3.23: at the end of paragraph, Monaldus adds that it is allowed to exact penalties from the debtor if their intention is not fraudulent, for it is in public inte- rest that agreements are kept (publicae interest pacta servari). Also worth noting is that in this paragraph, Monaldus greatly condenses Raymond’s defi nitions of diff erent types of penalties. - 3.40: the paragraph mostly uses the text of Raymond and William of Rennes. It states that the buyer is bound to pay the diff erence to a fair price if he achieves a lower price by misleading the seller. Monaldus makes a small, but interesting Zgodovinski časopis | 79 | 2025 | 3-4 | (172) 253 adjustment: he adds “especially a simple person” (maxime simplicem). Monaldus therefore held that simple people required special legal protection in this case. The use of the term simplex is especially interesting because Monaldus names it in the prologue as the audience his Summa is especially geared towards. - 3.42: at end of paragraph, Monaldus adds that, as far as God is concerned, a usurer becomes a usurer by expectation itself (sola spes), citing Liber extra. If this is indeed an addition by Monaldus and not an interpolation (which is possible), it would be an example of Monaldus working with the original collections of law. - 4.5: a paragraph on restitution made to absent debtors. The placement of this paragraph here is unusual since the same topic is later addressed on the basis of Raymond and William of Rennes (5.15). - 5.19: a paragraph on loans given in exchange for receiving a loan in the future. - 5.20: a paragraph on lending money received by a usurious loan. - 5.21: a paragraph on the use of a pledged horse. Subsection Quidam casus and the question of interpolation The sixth subsection, Quidam casus, gives some examples of partnership contracts in which interest is permitted. It does not seem to stem from earlier ca- nonist writings, but some kind of template was most likely used (perhaps actual contracts). Its inclusion is quite an innovation. Todeschini in his work Richezza Francescana invokes precisely this subsection of De usura.59 He does so while saying that Monaldus was “the fi rst Franciscan economist” and the fi rst author to discuss business dealings from the perspective of ethics. Preceding authors avoided this topic altogether as inherently suspicious. In discussing the world of business from an objective point of view, Monaldus implicitly granted it legitimacy. The problem with the subsection Quidam casus is that it may be an interpo- lation, albeit a very early one. This is suggested by the following observations: 1. While Quidam casus is a regular part of text in many manuscripts, including the earliest explicitly dated one,60 it is either absent or was added subsequently in many others. In at least two manuscripts, it was added by a later hand.61 Before the beginning of the subsection in Biblioteca Nazionale (Naples), VII F3, there is a note on the margin stating hic completur Summa (»here, the Summa ends«); Quidam casus are still added. In Biblioteca Nazionale (Naples), XIII A23, the text of Summa ends with the fi fth subsection. What follows is an unrelated text, Summa de restitutione male ablatorum by Manfredus of Tortona;62 only after the Summa of 59 Todeschini, Ricchezza francescana, pp. 86–88. 60 Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana, Ott. lat. 630; Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana (Flo- rence), Plut. 8 sin. 3; Bibliothè que de la Ville (Arras), cod. 91; the earliest dated manuscript of Monaldus’s Summa is Biblioteca Antoniniana (Padua), ms. 51 scaff . II. 61 Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana (Florence), Plut. 10 sin. 6; Berkeley Library (University of California), Robbins 79. 62 Incipit is cited by Mohan, “Initia operum franciscalium,” p. 367; however, he cites abbatorum instead of ablatorum. M. KRISTAN: Usury in the Summa of Monaldus: Sources, Composition, and Intentions of ...254 Manfredus follows Quidam casus. In the manuscript Medicea Laurenziana plut. 7 sin. 8, De usura ends with the fi fth subsection, with three short entries following it;63 afterwards, a second hand entered the epilogue; fi nally, a third hand entered Quidam casus (with the rubric Societas mercatoris on the margin) and repeated the epilogue. 2. There is a conspicuous stylistic deviation in Quidam casus (6.4): the phrase ego puto addendum (“I believe that it must be added” – in this case, that debtor is entitled to deduct the good faith expenses he made in the partnership). Monaldus does not introduce opinions in such a way anywhere else in De usura; he generally tends not to attribute opinions to specifi c individuals, especially not himself. What is more, when such phrases appear in his sources, he reformulates them impersonally – e.g. in 3.31, he changes Raymond’s idem dico, si nullo … into similiter dicendum est, si nullo … Monaldus does use fi rst person verbs, but only for giving concrete examples (e.g. 5.2, vendo tibi, “I sell you …”), never when presenting opinions. He also often uses the word dico, but with the adverbial force of “that is” (e.g. 3.9). 3. The prologue of De usura announces the fi rst fi ve subsections, but not the sixth one. 4. Miscellanea which forms most of the fi fth subsection is something we would expect at the end of an entry. Of course, it is still possible that Quidam casus were already included by Monaldus. The irregularities in textual transmission would then have to be explai- ned by the circulation of an early manuscript where the text cut off before Quidam casus. Manuscripts copied from this version would then be subsequently corrected. Even if Quidam casus are indeed an interpolation, it does not really take away from Todeschini’s argument. The interpolation would be so early and would have been added into the manuscripts so consistently that for all intents and purposes, it should still be considered an integral part of the Summa. However, one needs to be careful when attributing it to Monaldus as an individual, as Evangelisti does in arguing based on Quidam casus that Monaldus was personally connected to Bologna.64 Smaller adjustments to text Some minor adjustments to source texts illustrate Monaldus’s attention to detail as well as his tendency to make the text “user-friendly”. Let us examine the most interesting cases. When Raymond discusses loans given in one city and repaid in another, a practice which was often used to conceal interest, he gives as examples the cities Barchia and Cepta.65 It is not entirely clear which cities he had in mind – the former 63 Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, plut. 7 sin. 8, f. 260r. 64 Evangelisti, “Monaldo da Capodistria.” He does not mention Quidam casus explicitly, but this is the only section of De usura where Bologna is mentioned. 65 Badische Landesbibliothek (Karlsruhe), Cod. Aug. perg. 139, f. 158v. Zgodovinski časopis | 79 | 2025 | 3-4 | (172) 255 might be Barcelona, the latter Ceuta on the African side of the Strait of Gibraltar. This choice seems especially likely because Raymond was a native of Aragon and would presumably know western Mediterranean well. However, it seems that alre- ady in the time of Raymond, his contemporaries outside Iberia did not know these cities. This is evidenced by Willam’s gloss, which felt it necessary to comment on each of the toponyms by explaining: “This is a place.” (Locus est.) When Monaldus integrates this gloss (3.27), he simply replaces the two cities with Venice and Acre (Acon), which we can presume were well known throughout Europe and the Me- diterranean. Acre was at the time still the main Christian harbor in the Holy Land. In two cases, the placenames mentioned in Monaldus’s sources are omitted. In paragraph 3.24, Monaldus replaces William’s mention of Roman and Lombard merchants in the gloss ad singulos menses with the phrase “some” (quidam) mer- chants.66 In another passage, Raymond mentions that city states commit usury, too, “especially in Lombardy” (maxime in Lombardia);67 in the corresponding paragraph 5.6, Monaldus omits the mention of Lombardia altogether. These two “anonymizations” are interesting but harder to explain. Monaldus must have found the designation of these placenames either superfl uous or irrelevant for his intended audience. He also might have considered it inaccurate, false or unjustifi ed – perhaps economic changes rendered it obsolete. Monaldus also omits two legal practices mentioned by Raymond. In paragraph 3.31, he deletes violarium. William of Rennes already felt the need to explain the word in the corresponding gloss: “This is a vernacular name for certain rents” (No- men est vulgare aliquorum proventium, probably to be emended to proventuum), leaving the impression he did not completely understand the word himself.68 Even today, we were unable to fi nd a clear defi nition of what violarium actually was. DuCange dictionary defi nes violarium as “Spanish rent” (census Hispanis) and quotes some examples which are mostly connected to Aragon and date to around the year 1300.69 Since Raymond was originally from Aragon, he must have known this legal practice, while Monaldus considered it unimportant for the average reader and therefore omitted its mention. Monaldus also omitted the mention of loans sub causamento (Raymond 7.3), evidently due to its obscurity. William of Rennes had issues understanding causamentum as well: in his gloss, he says causamentum is not a legal term, but a vernacular term »of some land« (alicuius terrae), and that it is perhaps connected to modum camusentium (?) aut aliorum, qui mutuant amore garae (gara perhaps being a unit of measurement for land area).70 It is hard to make sense even of William’s gloss – the text might be corrupted. DuCange dictionary does include causamentum, but none of the defi nitions it provides seem to fi t into context here. 66 Badische Landesbibliothek (Karlsruhe), Cod. Aug. perg. 139, f. 158r. 67 Badische Landesbibliothek (Karlsruhe), Cod. Aug. perg. 139, f. 163v. 68 Badische Landesbibliothek (Karlsruhe), Cod. Aug. perg. 139, f. 159r. 69 DuCange, Glossarium, s. v. violarium. 70 Badische Landesbibliothek (Karlsruhe), Cod. Aug. perg. 139, f. 157r; corresponding gloss on f. 157v. M. KRISTAN: Usury in the Summa of Monaldus: Sources, Composition, and Intentions of ...256 However, examples listed there are connected to Iberia: one is from a collection of customary law of Barcelona, Usatici Barcinonenses (13th century), and the second one is a charter by the king of Portugal (also from the 13th century).71 Causamen- tum therefore seems to be another legal concept used only in Iberia. As a native of Aragon, Raymond was acquainted with it; Monaldus, however, considered it irrelevant and simply deleted it in the corresponding section of his Summa (3.21). Another principle Monaldus seems to have followed is the reduction of sour- ces. Monaldus only cites the fundamental ones, namely the collections of Roman and canon law. When it comes to canonists preceding himself, he mostly cites them as “some” (aliqui). The intricacies of contemporary canonist discourse were apparently not something the reader needed to know. Paragraph 4.8 is an example of this. Raymond says a usurious cleric is not allowed to make restitution using Church property, only his personal property. William’s glosses ad de rebus and ad sed de suis disagree: “Master seems to suggest … which I do not believe” (vide- tur magister innuere … quod ego non credo). He goes on to say that if a usurious cleric has no personal property, he can in fact make restitution with the income of the Church property.72 Monaldus combines the two glosses into an independent paragraph without attributing them to William; he introduces it simply with “some say” (dicunt quidam). Another such example is paragraph 5.16. It deals with the question of whether the usurer is bound to restitute not only usurious money, but income he made from it as well. Raymond already quotes two opposing opinions, one holding that the usurer is bound and the other that he is not. William’s gloss ad quod tenetur explains the former opinion was held by Alanus, but is too harsh.73 Monaldus acknowledges this gloss by simply stating: “This opinion is too harsh, according to some.” (Hoc est dura sententia secundum quosdam.) There are some other small changes to texts which are harder to explain. For example, in paragraph 3.6, Monaldus switches the order of two cases in which taking interest is allowed. In paragraph 3.20, he adds at the end that it is usurious not to deduct yields of the pledge from the principal, which seems out of context in a paragraph on sales. Intentions Now that we have addressed the more “technical” aspects of the Summa, we can better illustrate the intentions of Monaldus and evaluate his work accordingly. His choice of genre itself is already telling. Summa (Latin for “sum”, “the whole”) was a scholastic genre of didactical works, mostly dating to 12–14th centuries, the goal of which was to collect and systematize the totality of knowledge for a certain fi eld, e.g. philosophy, theology, logic, rhetorics, law.74 Approaches their authors 71 DuCange, Glossarium, s. v. causa 4. 72 Badische Landesbibliothek (Karlsruhe), Cod. Aug. perg. 139, ff . 161v–162r. 73 Badische Landesbibliothek (Karlsruhe), Cod. Aug. perg. 139, f. 165r. 74 Defi nition by Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche, s. v. Zgodovinski časopis | 79 | 2025 | 3-4 | (172) 257 used were diff erent: some preferred accumulating as much information as possible, others favored conciseness, and others still clarity and structure. Summae were often, but not always, also titled summa. The Summa of Monaldus is conventionally classifi ed into the subgenre of summae confessorum, handbooks of church law and theology intended for use by priests in confessions.75 However, the concept of summae confessorum might be due for revision. The contents of the so-called summae confessorum often do not match what we would expect in a manual for confessors. The Summa of Monaldus, for instance, includes many entries on topics that could not have been essential or useful for practical everyday work of an average confessor, e.g. the entry on elections of the pope and the emperor (De electione) and the one on university professors (De magistro). On the other hand, the entry on penance (De paenitentia) is six folios long, which is not extremely short relative to other entries, but is somewhat brief for a topic that would have been of fundamental importance to a confessor. It is true that in the prologue, penance is mentioned among other motivations for writing the Summa (circa iudicium et consilium animarum in foro paenitentiae); however, this might simply be a literary convention. It seems that Monaldus had a broader audience in mind. Shaw already made a similar observation regarding Raymond’s Summa, noting it is more a handbook of canon law than a confessor’s manual.76 It seems that for Monaldus, counteracting ignorance in general was a far more prominent goal than aiding confessors. The incipit of the Summa itself already addresses the topic of ignorance: Quoniam ignorans ignorabitur (“But if anyone ignores this, they will themselves be ignored.”). The words are taken from 1 Cor 14:38, and in their original context refer to ignorance of the fact that what St Paul speaks of are God’s commands. In the prologue, Monaldus emphasizes that grave errors are committed due to ignorance of the law. He states his target audience to be people ignorant of law (habentes iuris ignorantiam) and simplices, “simple people”, a word he uses three times in the prologue. It is an interesting, albeit an unanswerable question which people exactly Monaldus meant by this term. Literate people (especially priests) that had no legal education? Perhaps even illiterate laymen who could consult the work with the help of the literate? In any case, aiding the ignorant was a principle Monaldus practically puts to use in the rest of the text. As we have seen, in De usura, he enters simplex as a category of person requiring special legal protection. In the prologue, Monaldus cites the usage by "simple people" as motivation for alphabetizing the entries (sub singulis litteris alphabeti … ut simplices quod quaerunt valeant facilius invenire). Most other adjustments we have seen in the previous section of this article can be at- tributed to this aim as well. 75 For a defi nition see Grison, “Note in margine,” pp. 335–337. 76 Shaw, “Corporeal and spiritual homicide,” p. 287, fn. 25. M. KRISTAN: Usury in the Summa of Monaldus: Sources, Composition, and Intentions of ...258 Conclusions and evaluation of the Summa When discussing Monaldus, it is tempting to simply brand him as a compi- lator and move on. That would not do him justice and would betray a modern bias towards the original, the groundbreaking and the never-before-seen. Being called “derivative” today is virtually a term of abuse. However, in evaluating the Summa of Monaldus, especially within its historical context, other aspects are relevant. Even today, what we primarily look for in general surveys of entire fi elds (e.g. encyclopedias, textbooks, handbooks) is not new and innovative ideas, but rather structure, clarity and usefulness. If we approach Summa from this perspective, it emerges in a much better light. Corpus iuris civilis and collections of Church law are monumental, barely navigable masses of excerpts which often contradict each other. Using them requi- red extensive knowledge possessed only by people who studied law, a negligible minority, numerically speaking. The need for entry-level texts was much greater. Monaldus responded to that need and apparently did so exceedingly well: as al- ready mentioned, at least 70 manuscripts of Monaldus’s Summa are extant. The publication of Monaldus’s Summa also coincides chronologically with a fall in the number of new manuscripts for Raymond’s Summa, indicating it replaced the work it was based on.77 Both of these facts are a quantitative testament to its success; a qualitative one are positive reactions to Monaldus’s work by later canonists.78 We already mentioned two of them: Peter John Olivi describes Monaldus as “holy brother” (frater sanctus). Bartholomew of Pisa writes: “If one wishes to see summae on laws and decretals, brother Monaldus made one in alphabetical order.” (si homo vult videre summas in Legibus et Decretalibus, frater Monaldus ordine alphabeti fecit unam). Saint Anto- nine of Florence († 1459) considered Monaldus “a great canonist and theologian” (magnus canonista et theologus). Mariano de Florentia († 1523) called him “the prince of all jurists of his age and also a great theologian” (omnium iuristarum suae aetatis princeps et etiam magnus theologus), explicitly mentioning the alphabetical order of the Summa (Summam fecit in Legibus et Decretalibus per ordinem alpha- beti). Two writers from around 1600 even mention the Summa with the honorifi c title “the golden” (Summa aurea). We cannot delve any further into the infl uence of the Summa in the centuries after its publication here. The question will have to wait for another time; however, it is just as important as the question of the “genesis” of the text. An overview of the reception of Monaldus will be needed before we can make a full assessment of Monaldus’s impact on the fi eld of canon law. Most modern scholars evaluate the Summa positively, too. Von Schulte calls it “an exceedingly skillful compilation” (höchst geschickte Compilation), adding that Monaldus moved away from theological argumentation and gave precedence to the law.79 He also states that the Summa of Monaldus (as well as the Summa 77 Langholm, Economics in the Medieval Schools, p. 447. 78 For these mentions of Monaldus in later canonists, see Decarli, “Saggio di bibliografi a.” 79 von Schulte, Geschichte der Quellen, p. 416. Zgodovinski časopis | 79 | 2025 | 3-4 | (172) 259 of John of Saxony) surpassed Raymond’s Summa “in juristic presentation” (in juristischer Darstellung).80 As already mentioned, Todeschini holds Monaldus to be “the fi rst Franciscan economist”.81 Langholm names Monaldus’s Summa as the fi rst Franciscan handbook for confessors: even if we disagree with the concept of summae confessorum, Monaldus’s infl uence on later Franciscan writers is indis- putable.82 Evangelisti writes that unlike Raymond, Monaldus gave precedence to the analytical-experimental approach, explicitly citing De usura.83 Finally, due to Monaldus’s interest for the human instead of the theological and due to the in- structive force of his text, Monaldus has been deemed a precursor of Humanism.84 Even ignoring the opinion of eminent canonists of old and scholars of new, the merits of Monaldus’s work are evident. Alphabetizing the entries was an egg of Columbus that allowed Monaldus to write a reference work substantially more navigable than the preceding ones. In structuring such a work, Monaldus had no templates, because he was the fi rst one to do it. He further improved the structure of his text by introducing subsections and itemization. He accomplished all this within a long text, in a time before typesetting and text-editing software. The motivation of many of Monaldus’s edits is to make the text clearer and more concise, in line with his stated goal of helping “the simple”. Monaldus successfully integrates William’s gloss into Raymond’s text it was originally commenting upon, reconciling the diff erences in opinion. This greatly improves the experience of the reader who does not have to read two texts in parallel. Monaldus keeps explicit citations only for fundamental collections of law while omitting or anonymizing other canonists. He also omits obscure legal practices and placenames which were not common knowledge. The Summa is in no way a blind reproduction of sources devoid of legal thought. Monaldus included and omitted material according to his own views on legal questions. He emphasized the role of intentions when judging usury: it therefore seems that his view of usury was less strict than Raymond’s. This might already refl ect a general trend of diminishing anti-usury rigor towards the end of the Middle Ages. There are also original contributions. Monaldus twice adds the circumstance of contumacy where his sources did not consider it. He gives special consideration to the “simple”. We must therefore reject Grison’s conclusion that the Summa of Monaldus “lacks any even slightest eff ort to express personal and original thought”.85 This is only an impression left by reading on the surface. Mo- naldus evidently did rework his sources according to his opinions, even though he did not outright express these personal opinions as such. Franciscan humility might play a role in that. In the prologue, Monaldus iden- tifi es himself only as frater M., minimus inter parvos. This is probably wordplay 80 von Schulte, Geschichte der Quellen, pp. 416–417, 527. 81 Todeschini, Ricchezza francescana, p. 87. 82 Langholm, Economics in the Medieval Schools, p. 448. 83 Evangelisti, “Monaldo da Capodistria.” 84 Decarli, “Un precursore dell’umanesimo,” pp. 89–90, including fn. 42. 85 Grison, “Note in margine,” p. 344. M. KRISTAN: Usury in the Summa of Monaldus: Sources, Composition, and Intentions of ...260 alluding to him being a Friar Minor (frater minor): he omits the minor (comparative degree of the adjective) while still hinting at it by using the superlative degree (minimus) and the positive degree (parvus) of the same adjective. He also speaks of the smallness of his intellect (parvitas ingenii mei) and twice calls the Summa, in fact a hefty volume which in most manuscripts takes up around 200 folios, a “trifl ing work” (opusculum). He even encourages the reader to emend his errors. Monaldus inviting the reader to improve the text also shows he had no issue with altering texts. The changes he made to his source material certainly prove as much. Raymond was not only a commentator, he was the author of Liber extra, i.e. some of the law he discussed. It is not a coincidence that Raymond is the patron saint of canonists. It was not possible to stray far from such an authority, and Monaldus acknowledged that by taking Raymond as his base source. However, we could argue that Monaldus’s Summa already refl ects a shift in the relationship towards autho- ritative texts. Generally, the classical text, be it the Bible, Justinian’s code or the Summa of Raymond, was sacrosanct: it was left intact with only individual phrases commented upon in the gloss on the margin. Monaldus’s integration of William’s gloss into the corresponding text itself was a substantial intervention. Monaldus put usefulness and conciseness over following authoritative writers precisely. On its face, this way of encyclopedic writing may seem strange. But in fact, we can observe it even today in the single most infl uential encyclopedia of our time – Wikipedia. Changes a single contributor makes to a Wikipedia article do not generally result in an entirely diff erent text. Instead, an individual version of an article refl ects many layers of contributions. Original research is in fact discouraged in order to preserve a neutral point of view. It is mostly in minor touches to the text that one can gleam the writing pro- cess behind the Summa and the legal thought of Monaldus. To fi nd these edits, textual criticism and detailed comparison with source texts were needed. It was time consuming, and it is probably not feasible for a single scholar to go over the entire canonist production with this method. However, going over a sample of the text word for word is still a much better basis for drawing conclusions than taking the entire Summa on its face, especially if one works with the faulty 16th century edition. In trying to contribute a detailed analysis, this article hopefully off ers some insight into the work of other canonists and medieval authors as well. In conclusion - even though Summa is primarily a compilation, its value should not be underestimated. The Summa is a splendid piece of editorial work and scholarly synthesis and a substantial intellectual achievement. Monaldus must have been acquainted with his fi eld and his sources well, for such a work required detailed knowledge and attentive analysis of extensive, unintuitively structured and sometimes contradictory sources. As this analysis has shown, Monaldus did not reproduce his sources uncritically, but selected passages from them thoughtfully, added to them and adjusted, organized and structured them. These qualities of the Summa are not called into question neither by his contemporaries nor by modern scholars. In the Summa of Monaldus, it was not just law that was brought to the fore, but also the reader. Zgodovinski časopis | 79 | 2025 | 3-4 | (172) 261 Sources and Literature Sources Godfrey of Trani. Summa perutilis et valde necessaria do. Goff redi de Trano super titulis de- cretalium novissime cum Repertorio et numeris principalium et emergentium questionum Lugduni Impressa cum Privilegio. Lyon. Hostiensis. Henrici de Segusio Cardinalis Hostiensis Summa Aurea, Ad vetustisimos Codices summa fi de, diligentiaque nunc primum collata, atque ab innumeris erroribus, quibus scatebat hactenus, repurgata. Venice: Apud Franciscum de Franciscis, Senensem, 1586. Monaldus. Summa perutilis atuqe aurea venerabilis viri fratris Monaldi in utroque iure tam civili quam canonico fundata. Lyon: Peter Baleti, 1516. William of Auxerre. Aurea doctoris acutissimi sacrique presulis domini Guillelmi Altissiodorensis in quattuor sententiarum libros perlucida explanatio vobis denuo divinorum eloquiorum cultores ferventissimi nuda tersa mendicisque pristinis purgata: nunc nunc paratur. Paris: Francoys Regnault. Literature Brancale, Giuseppe. “Indice analitico dei codici contenenti la Summa del b. Monaldo.” In: Beato Monaldo da Giustinopoli 1210 – 1280 ca.: atti raccolti in occasione del VII centenario del suo transito. Trieste: Provincia Veneta dei Frati Minori e Comitato Capodistriano, 1982, pp. 65–80. Busoni, C. A. et al. “Lo scheletro del beato Monaldo da Capodistria: analisi antropologica e paleopatologica.” In: Beato Monaldo da Giustinopoli 1210 – 1280 ca.: atti raccolti in occasione del VII centenario del suo transito. Trieste: Provincia Veneta dei Frati Minori e Comitato Capodistriano, 1982, pp. 97–128. Decarli, Lauro. “Saggio di bibliografi a Monaldina.” In: Beato Monaldo da Giustinopoli 1210 – 1280 ca.: atti raccolti in occasione del VII centenario del suo transito. Trieste: Provincia Veneta dei Frati Minori e Comitato Capodistriano, 1982, pp. 131–160. Decarli, Lauro. “Un precursore dell’umanesimo.” In: Beato Monaldo da Giustinopoli 1210 – 1280 ca.: atti raccolti in occasione del VII centenario del suo transito. Trieste: Provincia Veneta dei Frati Minori e Comitato Capodistriano, 1982, pp. 81–90. Du Cange et al. Glossarium mediae et infi mae latinitatis. Niort: L. Favre, 1883–1887. Evangelisti, Paolo. “Monaldo da Capodistria.” In: Treccani. Available on: https://www.treccani. it/enciclopedia/monaldo-da-capodistria_(Dizionario-Biografi co)/ (access: 26 May 2025). Golob, Nataša. Manuscripta: knjižno slikarstvo v srednjeveških rokopisih iz Narodne in univerz- itetne knjižnice v Ljubljani. Ljubljana: Narodna galerija and Filozofska fakulteta Univerze v Ljubljani, 2010. Golob, Nataša. “Monaldova pravna enciklopedija kot rokopisna umetnina.” In: Beatus Monaldus Iustinopolitanus: Summa de iure canonico, edd. Peter Štoka and Ivan Marković. Koper: Osrednja knjižnica Srečka Vilharja, 2013, pp. 39–57. Grendler, Paul F. The Universities of the Italian Renaissance. Baltimore: John Hopkins Uni- versity Press, 2002. Grison, Roberto. “Note in margine ad un testo penitenziale francescano: la »Summa confessorum« di Monaldo da Capodistria.” Le Venezie francescane 6 (1989), pp. 335–344. Hartmann, Pennington and Kenneth Pennington (edd.). The History of Medieval Canon Law in the Classical Period, 1140–1234. From Gratian to the Decretals of Pope Gregory IX. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2008. M. KRISTAN: Usury in the Summa of Monaldus: Sources, Composition, and Intentions of ...262 Huber, Raphael M. St. Anthony of Padua. Doctor of the Church Universal. A Critical Study of the Historical Sources of the Life, Sanctity, Learning and Miracles of the Saint of Padua and Lisbon. Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1948. Hyde, J. K. “Commune, University, and Society in Early Medieval Bologna.” In: Universities in politics. Case Studies from the Late Middle Ages and Early Modern Period, edd. John W. Baldwin and Richard A. Goldthwaite. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1972, pp. 17–46. Jenko Kovačič, Ana. “Opombe k življenju in delovanju blaženega Monalda.” Acta Histriae 26 (2016) 2, pp. 189–202. Kandler, Pietro. Codice diplomatico istriano I. Trieste: Tipografi a del Lloyd Austriaco. Kristan, Matic. “Oderuštvo v Monaldovi Summa de iure canonico: poskus tekstnokritične ana- lize vira.” Master’s thesis, Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana, 2024. Available on: https://repozitorij.uni-lj.si/IzpisGradiva.php?id=160653&lang=eng (access: 26 May 2025). Langholm, Odd. Economics in the Medieval Schools. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1992. Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche. Herder: Freiburg, 2000. Mohan, G. E. “Initia operum franciscalium (XIII–XV S.) I–Q.” Franciscan Studies 37 (1977), pp. 178–375. Noonan, John T. The Scholastic Analysis of Usury. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Uni- versity Press, 1957. Papež, Viktor. “Summa de iure canonico fr. Monaldi de Iustinopoli, iuristarum suae aetatis princeps et magnus theologus.” In: Beatus Monaldus Iustinopolitanus: Summa de iure canonico, edd. Peter Štoka and Ivan Marković. Koper: Osrednja knjižnica Srečka Vilharja, 2013, pp. 59–72. Parentin, Luigi. “Tre pergamene inedite attinenti i Minori Francescani.” In: Beato Monaldo da Giustinopoli 1210 – 1280 ca.: atti raccolti in occasione del VII centenario del suo transito. Trieste: Provincia Veneta dei Frati Minori e Comitato Capodistriano, 1982, pp. 17–28. Rashdall, Hastings. The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages. Volume I: Salerno-Bologna- Paris. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1895. Rashdall, Hastings. The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages. Volume II, Part I: Italy-Spain- France-Germany-Scotland etc. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1895. von Schulte, Johann Friedrich. Die Geschichte der Quellen und Literatur des Canonischen Rechts von Gratian bis auf die Gegenwart. Zweiter Band. Die Geschichte der Quellen und Literatur von Papst Gregor IX. bis zum Concil von Trient. Stuttgart: Verlag von Ferdinand Enke, 1877. Shaw, Judith. “Corporeal and Spiritual Homicide, the Sin of Wrath, and the ‘Parson’s Tale’.” Traditio 38 (1982), pp. 281–300. Škunca, Stanko Josip. Povijesni pregled franjevačke provincije sv. Jeronima u Dalmaciji i Istri. Zadar: Provincijalat franjevačke provincije u Dalmaciji i Istri, 2006. Todeschini, Giacomo. Ricchezza francescana: dalla povertà volontaria alla società di mercato. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino, 2004. Wickham, Chris. Donkey and the Boat. Reinterpreting the Mediterranean Economy, 950–1180. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2023. Žepič, Vid. “Monald Koprski in zastavna pogodba v delu Summa de iure canonico.” Bogoslovni vestnik 84 (2024) 1, pp. 77–90. Zgodovinski časopis | 79 | 2025 | 3-4 | (172) 263 P O V Z E T E K Oderuštvo v Monaldovi Summi: viri, sestava in nameni pravne enciklopedije iz 13. stoletja Matic Kristan Pričujoči članek obravnava Monaldovo delo Summa de iure canonico, prvo pravno encik- lopedijo. Nastala je v 13. stoletju in požela velik uspeh, o čemer pričata veliko število rokopisov (vsaj 70) in pa ugled, ki ga je Monald užival pri kasnejših kanonistih. Ali delo spada v zvrst summa confessorum, tj. spovedniških priročnikov, je glede na vsebino vprašljivo. Viri o samem Monaldu so zelo skopi. Izpričujejo le, da je bil manjši brat, da se je rodil v letih 1210–1220, da je bil leta 1254 provincialni minister manjših bratov in da je umrl najkasneje leta 1285. Da je bil pokopan v Kopru, je izpričano že v 14. stoletju. Gotovo je imel pravniško izobrazbo: do sedaj se ga je večinoma povezovalo z univerzo v Padovi, vendar tudi študija v Bologni ni mogoče izključiti. Najverjetneje je v red manjših bratov vstopil, ko je že študiral. Članek se osredotoča na geslo o oderuštvu (De usura). Analiza temelji na kritični izdaji, ki je izšla leta 2024 v okviru magistrskega dela; edina dosedanja izdaja iz 16. stoletja je namreč preveč pomanjkljiva, da bi bili na njeni podlagi mogoči zanesljivi zaključki. Poleg vseprisotnih slovničnih napak so v tej izdaji problem tudi interpolacije, zaradi katerih se utegne Monaldu kot piscu prisojati seznanjenost z deli, ki jih očitno še ni poznal. De usura se deli na šest podgesel: defi nicijo obrestovanja, razdelitev obrestovanja, primere dovoljenega in nedovoljenega obrestovanja, povrnitev obresti, oderuštvo z zastavo (pod to geslo spada tudi zbirka posameznih primerov, ki se tematsko ne uvrščajo v nobeno od predhodnih podgesel) in pa primere družbenih pogodb, pri katerih je obrestovanje dovoljeno. Zadnje od teh podgesel je verjetno kasnejši dodatek, saj je v mnogo rokopisov dodano naknadno. Temelj Monaldovega besedila sta Summa Rajmunda Penyafortskega in pripadajoča glosa Viljema iz Rennesa: vsaka od njiju predstavlja približno po eno tretjino Monaldovega besedila. Monald jima večinoma sledi linearno, odkloni in vstavki so razmeroma redki. Po Rajmundo- vem in Viljemovem besedilu Monald doda še nekaj paragrafov, prevzetih iz Summe Godfreja iz Tranija. Ponekod so izražene tudi ideje Viljema iz Auxerra, vendar običajno v zelo zgoščeni obliki. Za ostale dele besedila domnevamo, da so Monaldovi lastni dodatki. Gesla v Monaldovi Summi so razvrščena po abecednem vrstnem redu, kar je bila velika inovacija in je glavni razlog, da jo obravnavamo kot prvo pravno enciklopedijo. Strukturo je izbolj- šal tudi z razdelitvijo gesel na podgesla in jasnejšo razčlenitev paragrafov z uvodno besedo item. Številne Monaldove prilagoditve besedila težijo k temu, da bi tekst napravile bolj dostopen. Tudi sam v prologu omenja, da želi, da bi njegovo delo služilo »preprostim« (simplices). V tem duhu lahko razumemo Monaldovo združitev Rajmundovega teksta in Viljemove glose v enotno besedilo: zaradi tega bralcu ni bilo treba neprestano begati med besedilom in gloso na margini. Monald je prav tako iz besedila pogosto izpustil nasprotujoča si mnenja in obskurnejše pravne koncepte. Omembe manj znanih krajev je nadomestil s splošno znanimi. Citate je v glavnem omejil le na bistvena dela, tj. zbirke rimskega in kanonskega prava, kanoniste pa je citiral manj dosledno. Monald ni le povzemal mnenj svojih predhodnikov, temveč je med sestavljanjem Summe zastopal tudi določena pravna stališča. Pri njegovem usklajevanju nasprotij med Rajmundom in Viljemom iz Rennesa se večinoma postavlja na stran Viljema, ki je imel v nekaterih vidikih na obrestovanje manj stroge poglede. Poleg tega so nekateri deli De usura očitno izvirno Mo- naldovo delo. Pri presojanju oderuštva je posebej poudarjal vlogo namere. Tudi njegovo delitev oderuštva moremo označiti za izvirno. Sedem primerov, v katerih je obrestovanje dovoljeno, je povzel z mnemotehničnim heksametrom. Na dveh mestih vstavil kontumac kot oteževalno okoliščino. Prav tako Monald pri enem od primerov poudari, da mora biti preprost človek deležen posebnega pravnega varstva. M. KRISTAN: Usury in the Summa of Monaldus: Sources, Composition, and Intentions of ...264 Monald v prologu bralca povabi, naj besedilo izboljša; pa tudi sam ni imel večjih zadrž- kov pri poseganju v standardna besedila. Monaldove prilagoditve besedil, ki jih je prevzel iz svojih virov, morda nakazujejo drugačen pogled na tekst kot tak. Jasnosti in konciznosti je dajal prednost pred avtoriteto. Čeprav je Monaldova Summa pretežno derivativno delo, je ne gre omalovaževati. Monald ni bil premočrten kompilator. Njegovo delo odraža tako dobro poznavanje obravnavanega področja kot velik občutek za strukturacijo teksta. Ureditev in vsebinska sinteza njegove enciklopedije predstavljata pomemben intelektualni dosežek. Z njegovo Summo v ospredje ni stopilo le pravo, temveč tudi bralec. Z | Ljubljana | 79 | 2025 | št. 3-4 (172) | str. 233–469 ISSN 0350-5774 9 7 7 0 3 5 0 5 7 7 0 0 2