The “Cura pastoralis” Fragment 
from the Archives of the Republic 
of Slovenia: A Completely Different 
Story
Anke Lenssens
Ghent University, Faculty of Arts and Philosophy, Blandijnberg 2, 9000 Gent, Belgium
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3756-3336
Anke.Lenssens@UGent.be
The fragment “Cura pastoralis” is the oldest manuscript fragment in Slovenia 
and is kept in the Archives of the Republic of Slovenia under the file number AS 
1073, II–1r. It consists of one bifolium. One side of it is very badly damaged, as 
the fragment was once used for the binding of a book that served as the marriage 
register of the town of Trbovlje between 1669 and 1704. The register is still kept 
in the Diocesan Archives of Maribor. The bifolium is cataloged as a fragment 
of a ninth-century manuscript containing the “Cura pastoralis” of Gregory the 
Great. After a thorough examination, however, it turned out to be part of a work 
by Paterius of Brescia, Gregory the Great’s first secretary, which may have seen 
the light of day in the Freising scriptorium. There are some physical and content-
related similarities between the fragment and the oldest complete manuscript in 
Slovenia, the Ecloga of Lathcen, which was written in the same period, namely at 
the end of the first half of the ninth century.
Keywords: Christian literature / Medieval manuscripts / ninth century / fragments / 
Gregory the Great / Paterius of Brescia / Lathcen: Ecloga / Trbovlje / Freising
183
Primerjalna književnost (Ljubljana) 47.2 (2024)
Content and physical appearance
The so­called “Cura Pastoralis” fragment, known under signature AS 
1073, II­1r in the Archives of the Republic of Slovenia, has a dimen­
sion of 26,9 by 35,7 centimeters and the text is divided over 30 lines.1 
The fragment goes back to the second quarter of the ninth century and 
was most likely copied in a Southwest­German writing school (Golob, 
1 Research Foundation—Flanders and Slovenian Research and Innovation Agency 
have financed the underlying research. Project number: FWO.OPR.2021.0087.01.
PKn, letnik 47, št. 2, Ljubljana, avgust 2024
184
Srednjeveški rokopisi 182). The complete text seems to be written by the 
same hand. There is little reason to doubt the dating of the bifolium. 
Therefore, its Carolingian origin is also very straightforward.
Figure 1: Inner side of the bifolium AS 1073, II­1r.
Figure 2: Outer side of the bifolium AS 1073, II­1r.
About 20 years ago, Nataša Golob defined the fragment as a part of a 
manuscript containing the Cura or Regula Pastoralis by Gregory the 
Great (Golob, “Karolinški fragment” 277–281). At the bottom of the 
Anke Lenssens:     The “Cura pastoralis” Fragment from the Archives of the Republic of Slovenia
185
right page of the bifolium on the inner side we can indeed read the 
following title in bold letters: IN CODICE REGULE PASTORALIS 
III. After taking a look at the exact content of the inner side of the 
bifolium, it became clear that it contains parts of another famous work 
by Gregory the Great, namely the Moralia in Iob. The left page on the 
inner side contains a part of chapter 51 of book 15. The right page holds 
part of chapter 16 of book 9 (Gregorius I and Adriaen, Moralia in Iob: 
libri I–X 473–476; libri XI–XXII 784–786). This explanation was also 
added in a more recent description of the manuscript fragment by the 
same author (Golob, Srednjeveški rokopisi 183). The outer side of the 
bifolium is severely damaged and almost impossible to read. However, 
on the right side of the outer part of the bifolium, it is possible to dis­
tinguish a title written in bold letters followed by a capitalis D on the 
next line. By putting in a little effort and using a light source, we are 
able to distinguish the ink from the parchment, especially because the 
scribe was rather generous with the use of ink while writing headings. 
The heading reads: IN EXPOSITIONE BEATI IOB LIBRO XXXV. 
The presence of this title reassures us again that it is indeed a part of 
the Moralia in Iob we are dealing with. Contrary to what was always as­
sumed and again pointed out in the most recent work on the fragment, 
Golob assumes that the left page of the damaged side of the bifolium 
must contain a part of the third book of the Regula Pastoralis, because 
this was mentioned in the title below the excerpt of book 9 chapter 16 
of the Moralia in Iob (Golob, Srednjeveški rokopisi 183). 
However, it is not as straightforward as it seems. The damaged side 
of the bifolium was never actually examined with full attention. One 
could say it is simply impossible to read, but with a little effort, it is 
still possible to distinguish some words2 on the left page of the dam­
aged side. At first sight, we can distinguish a part of chapter 25 from 
book 3 of the Regula Pastoralis (Migne, Patrologiae Volume 77 97–98). 
This would make sense considering the title IN CODICE REGULE 
PASTORALIS III written on the previous page. However, it would be 
very strange to add parts of the Regula Pastoralis when there are still 
parts of the Moralia in Iob to come, among which is chapter 51 of book 
15. According to our bifolium, the last sentence of book 9 chapter 16 
is: “Irae igitur Dei et resisti valet, quando ipse qui irascitur, opitulatur, 
et resisti omnino non valet, quando se ad ulciscendum excitat, et ipse 
2 Some examples of words that are still visible, are: de porta, necesse est, tanta 
aequalitate, culpas, occidat vir, amicum, profecto esse, universa plebs, papilionis and popu-
lus de egyptia.
PKn, letnik 47, št. 2, Ljubljana, avgust 2024
186
precem quae ei funditur non aspirat.” This is not the last sentence in 
the original version of the Moralia in Iob (Gregorius I and Adriaen, 
Moralia in Iob: libri I–X 473–476). When we further examine the left 
page of the damaged side, we see that there is more than just a part 
of Regula Pastoralis. There is an excerpt of the first homily of the sec­
ond part of the Homilae in Hiezechielem, another work by Gregory the 
Great (Migne, Patrologiae Volume 75 935–948). This excerpt directly 
follows the one from the Regula Pastoralis. Consecutively, we have 
excerpts, not complete chapters or texts, from Book 9 chapter 16 of the 
Moralia in Iob, chapter 25 of Book 3 of the Regula Pastoralis and the 
first homily of the second Book of the Homilies on Ezekiel. This exact 
order of excerpts is to be found in a work called De Expositione Veteris 
ac Novi Testamenti liber de diversis S. Gregorii Magni libris concinnatus 
by Paterius of Brescia, more precisely in the part on Exodus (Migne, 
Patrologiae Volume 79 747–749). The titles we can distinguish in the 
fragment, are therefore subtitles that identify the works from which the 
excerpts are taken. In principle, we should be able to find four of them 
throughout the fragment. On the right page of the damaged bifolium, 
we can distinguish two of them. As was already mentioned, the first one 
is still more or less visible: IN EXPOSITIONE BEATI IOB LIBRO 
XXXV. We can find another one at the bottom of the same page that is 
very poorly visible and can be read as: IN EXPOSITIONE BEATI IOB 
LIBRO XV (Migne, Patrologiae Volume 79 751). Still very well read­
able is the subtitle referring to the excerpt from the Regula Pastoralis: 
IN CODICE REGULE PASTORALIS III. We should be able to find 
the subtitle introducing the excerpt from the first homily of the second 
part of the Homilae in Hiezechielem. Unfortunately, the left page of the 
damaged side of the bifolium is in a very bad condition in the place 
where this subtitle should be. On line 17 of the page in question, we 
can vaguely distinguish the use of capital letters. This is likely the place 
where the excerpt of the homily was introduced. Considering all this, 
we see that the text on the right page of the intact side is continued on 
the left page of the damaged side. The same can be said about the right 
page of the damaged side and the left page of the intact side. Content 
wise, there is only a small gap between the end of the text on the left 
page and the beginning of the part on the right page of the damaged 
side. This means there was not more than one bifolium present inside 
of this one when it was still inside the manuscript.
The work of Paterius where AS 1073, II–1r was originally part of, 
is sometimes also referred to as Liber Testimoniorum. It still survives in 
123 works, both in complete versions and fragments (Martello 431, 
Anke Lenssens:     The “Cura pastoralis” Fragment from the Archives of the Republic of Slovenia
187
435). Now we can add the 124th to the tradition. Paterius was the 
notary and later on secundicerius3 under Gregory the Great (Étaix 78). 
As a contemporary and close collaborator of the famous pope, Paterius 
likely had the original versions at his disposal. Without doubt, his work 
certainly is characterized by its high quality. According to the author 
himself, the anthology was divided into three parts: two on the Old 
Testament and one on the New Testament. He wrote this in the pro­
logue of his work, but eventually the work has not survived the test of 
time in its entirety. We do possess the parts from Genesis till the Song 
of Songs. The last two parts, Proverbs and the Song of Songs, appear 
to be in a much rougher stage and less accurate (Martello 431–432). 
It was therefore argued by Étaix that these parts were not originally 
written by Paterius (Étaix 66–68). More recent research on the Liber 
Testimoniorum was carried out by Castaldi and Martello (Castaldi and 
Martello 23–107). They assume that the revision process was never 
completed for all the parts of the Liber Testimoniorum and that the 
revised parts therefore got lost because they were probably written 
down on inferior material. Only the last two parts of the 14 parts that 
have been copied through the centuries have survived in their unre­
vised form. Curiously, the work only started to gain fame in the eighth 
century. The oldest surviving fragments and “complete” versions go 
back to the same century (Martello 431–433). It is rather remarkable 
that Gregory the Great was often cited through the work of Paterius 
by a number of very well­known Medieval writers and theologians, 
like Bede and Rabanus Maurus (Étaix 67). Apart from that, the work 
of Paterius is still very valuable for the study of the works of Gregory 
the Great, as the Liber Testimonorium refers to unpublished fragments 
of the pope. This can, of course, be explained by the function Paterius 
held in Rome as the notary and later secundicerius of Pope Gregory. He 
would have been able to use unedited versions of the works of his pope 
(Étaix 75–78). Without doubt, the work of Paterius was considered as 
valuable and often used as a reference work for the oeuvre of Gregory 
the Great.
When we take a closer look at the fragment itself, we can notice 
something striking. On the right page of the readable side of the bifo­
lium, we notice some underlining on line 24. It concerns the following 
part of the sentence: “pro semetipso infirmatur.” One could wonder 
why these words in particular were emphasized. The whole sentence 
3 A secundicerius is the second in rank at the pontifical chancery (Boudinhon 122–
123).
PKn, letnik 47, št. 2, Ljubljana, avgust 2024
188
goes as follows: “Et pro semetipso infirmatus est pro semetipso infir­
matur in formidine qui furorem Dei placat aliis per interventionem.”4 
As can be seen, the same message, “pro semetipso infirmatus est pro 
semetipso infirmatur,” is given twice by two different grammatical con­
structions. The underlining is indeed very peculiar, as it does not seem 
to have a clear purpose. However, there is a manuscript from the same 
period with very similar content that holds the same type of underlin­
ing. The manuscript in question contains the Ecloga de moralibus Job, 
written by a certain Irish monk Lathcen or Laidcend who died in 661 in 
the monastery of Clonfertmulloe (Lathcen and Adriaen v). It is kept in 
the National and University Library in Ljubljana (NUK) under the reg­
istration mark MS 6. The Ecloga is actually a very condensed version or 
summary of the Moralia in Job (Lathcen and Adriaen v). In this manu­
script, the underlining was often used to point out mistakes in the text. 
Here, the correct words were mostly written above the erroneous part of 
the sentence. We do find many manuscripts where the corrections were 
added in the margins, but the practice of expunctuation existed as well. 
This meant that the incorrect part of the sentence was underlined with 
dots in order to warn the reader to ignore it (Rudy 59–60). The under­
lined words in our fragment are exactly the ones that the reader should 
ignore, so the underling is definitely a case of expunctuation. 
Figure 3: Expunctuation is clearly visible on AS 1073, II–1r.
4 “And he who shows weak for himself in fear, who appeases the Wrath of God for 
others through intervention.” All translations in this article are done by the author. 
Anke Lenssens:     The “Cura pastoralis” Fragment from the Archives of the Republic of Slovenia
189
Origin and value of the fragment
Where the manuscript that contained our fragment is originally from, 
is difficult to tell with certainty. We know it was used as binding mate­
rial for the marriage register of the parish of St. Martin spanning the 
period 1669–1704. In one of Nataša Golob’s works on manuscript 
fragments in Slovenia, she remarks that the discarded manuscripts 
that came to be recycled in the bindings of books often came from 
monasteries or other institutions near the place where the book was 
assembled (Golob, “Srednjeveški pergamentni fragmenti” 103). In our 
case, the book is a blank notebook, but we should be able to apply the 
same theory. In order to do so, we must first try to find out where the 
notebook was assembled. Fortunately, the marriage register holds some 
watermarks with a dimension of 3,5 by 4 centimeters5. We can clearly 
distinguish a watermark in the form of a rather plain shield with a cross 
beam holding a simple curlicue. However, the origin of the watermark 
has proven to be completely untraceable. This is certainly a setback, 
but there is still another clue that can give us some more insight into 
the origin of the fragment. Apparently, there were no standard forms 
for the registration of marriages before 1784, so the parishes were not 
instructed from above on where they should buy their notebooks and 
what quality they should have. Standardization was only introduced 
due to the reforms introduced by the Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II 
(Štih, Simoniti and Vodopivec 241). It would be rather odd if a small 
parish like St. Martin bought its notebooks at a place far removed from 
its own location. I therefore suggest the marriage register must have 
been assembled by a bookbinder that was relatively close by. What is 
also clearly visible, is the grid that was added to the paper in the same 
way as is done with the watermark. In order to add lines to the paper, 
metal strings were put inside the paper scoops. This technique came 
about in 1745 in Nürnberg. This type of gridded paper was normally 
of a higher standard and meant for chanceries and more generally for 
writing (Weiss and Weiss 170–174).
5 Many thanks to Igor Filipič, archival advisor at the Diocesan archives in Maribor, 
for sending the photographs of the watermarks and giving the information on the 
marriage register and former structure of the diocese.
PKn, letnik 47, št. 2, Ljubljana, avgust 2024
190
Figure 4: Watermark and grid on the paper of the marriage register (1669–1704) 
of St. Martin from the Diocesan Archives of Maribor, Parish of Trbovlje—Sv. 
Martin, sig. 0271, marriage book 01 1669–1704.
In short, we can be fairly sure that the parish of St. Martin acquired a 
notebook made with rather qualitative paper that was likely assembled 
nearby. Considering that the notebook was made not too far away from 
the Trbovlje region, the manuscript fragment must have been taken 
from a codex that was discarded from a location that was relatively close 
by. Considering that the handwriting was determined as South­East 
German and was possibly even of Freising origin (Golob, Srednjeveški 
rokopisi 181–182), it is possible that the work of Paterius travelled to 
the broader area around Trbovlje due to the presence of the bishopric 
of Freising in what was then Carantania. However, it is very unlikely 
that Freising was already active south of the river Drava (Drau) in the 
ninth century. Their first possession in this area was the Loka dominion 
in 973 (Sickel 56–57) and this is still relatively far away from the area 
of Trbovlje. Another possession that was in the hands of Freising and 
at a more or less equal distance from Trbovlje as is Škofja Loka, was 
the area around Klevevž. The first mentioned property of Freising in 
this area was Vinji Vrh. This was in 1074, just over one hundred years 
after the acquisition of the Loka dominion (Blaznik 5). This does not 
mean Freising could not have been active in this area a little sooner, 
but it seems unlikely they would have been active around Klevevž in 
Anke Lenssens:     The “Cura pastoralis” Fragment from the Archives of the Republic of Slovenia
191
the ninth or even tenth century. If this manuscript somehow ended 
up in St. Martin through interference from the bishopric of Freising, 
it was most likely due to its presence in the area of Škofja Loka. The 
manuscript could have only been brought from Freising if this was 
done more than 150 years after it was copied. This is indeed possible, 
considering the theory of Golob that peripheral areas of bishoprics, or 
in this case a remote possession, were often supplied with manuscripts 
that were discarded because newer copies were already in use at the 
center of the see (Golob, “Karolinški fragment” 280). Shortly put, the 
location of discovery of the fragment of Paterius’ work and the water­
marks on the paper of the marriage register cannot give us a definitive 
answer about the origin of the manuscript where the fragment once 
belonged to. We cannot rule out the Freising scriptorium as a possible 
candidate, but neither can we confirm it was copied there based solely 
on what has been discussed earlier.
However, there are other clues that still hint towards a Freising ori­
gin. The works by Gregory the Great alongside the oeuvre of other 
patristic fathers were copied eagerly by the Freising scriptorium. One 
could definitely speak of a tradition starting off during the episcopacy 
of Arbeo (764–783) and dwindling a bit by the time of Anno (854–
875). It knew its height during the episcopacy of Hitto (810/12–835), 
which overlaps with the period our fragment could be dated to approx­
imately. One could assume the codex containing the compilation work 
of Paterius saw the light during the heydays of patristic literature in 
Freising. The patristic writers that were held in especially high regard 
were Ambrose, Augustine and Gregory. The middle of the ninth cen­
tury was known for all its copying activities regarding the works of 
the Church fathers. This was all due to the Carolingian renaissance. 
It was important to possess these esteemed patristic works, especially 
for Cathedral schools (Mass 190–191). It is beyond any doubt that 
the work of Gregory the Great had an educational purpose. It is there­
fore most likely that the manuscript where our fragment was part of, 
belonged to a certain center of knowledge, as an anthology of the work 
of Gregory the Great must have come in very handy. Interestingly, 
we can also detect the popularity of the works of Gregory the Great 
at the monastery of St. Gall. We know that the oldest abbreviatio of 
the Moralia in Iob by Lathcen was recommended to Salomon, the 
future bishop of Konstanz, by his mentor Notker from St. Gall in his 
De interpretibus divinarum scripturarum. Notker suggested this work 
because it is much more condensed than the original work of Gregory 
the Great (Castaldi 374–375, Aris 362; Migne, Patrologiae Volume 131 
PKn, letnik 47, št. 2, Ljubljana, avgust 2024
192
996–997). In a way, this type of adaptation made it easier to process 
the material of very extensive works.
What seems to be often overlooked, is that Notker also recom­
mends the Liber Testimoniorum of Paterius in the first chapter of 
the same book. Chapter one recommends works that mainly discuss 
the Pentateuch (Migne, Patrologiae Volume 131 993–1004). About 
Paterius’ work, he literally states: “Quod si excerptum Paterii, quod 
de libris beati Gregorii per ordinem singulorum librorum deflorando 
confecit, unquam reperire potueris, illud tibi ad omnimodam sufficiet 
sapientiam.” (Migne, Patrologiae Volume 131 995)6 Paterius’ anthology 
was definitely highly valued by Notker and apparently not so easy to 
get hold of. The work provides the reader with the possibility to look 
up what Gregory wrote about a specific passage in the Old Testament 
without having to plough his way through multiple works of consid­
erable size, as it is composed of quotations from various writings of 
Gregory the Great.
We could argue that the Liber Testimoniorum and the Ecloga could 
have fulfilled a similar function. Both works can be seen as compact ver­
sions of much larger works. This definitely comes in handy for the train­
ing of new clergy and for looking up the answers to specific questions 
on the themes they discuss. At the same time that Salomon was trained, 
his brother by blood Waldo and future bishop of Freising, received his 
education in St. Gall as well (Mass 24). Both brothers could have been 
influenced by the recommendations of Notker. However, our frag­
ment of the Liber Testimoniorum and the copy of the Ecloga from the 
NUK (MS 6) were presumably both created a bit earlier than 850, so 
before the episcopates of the two brothers. Waldo only became bishop 
of Freising in 884 and Salomon took over the see of Konstanz in 890 
(Mass 72–73, 84). Both works were written in the same geographical 
area and have a very similar appearance. As was already mentioned, the 
paleographical examination of the fragment shows us that it was most 
likely part of a codex that was written in Southwest Germany, more 
specifically Freising, or the Eastern part of what is now Switzerland 
(Golob, Srednjeveški rokopisi 181–182). MS 6 from the NUK contain­
ing the Ecloga has also been attributed to a Southern or Southwestern 
German writing school. In the ninth century the work of Lathcen was 
mainly copied in Murbach, Reichenau, Salzburg, Konstanz and other 
6 “But if you could ever find the excerpt of Paterius, which he produced by select­
ing the books of the blessed Gregory through the order of the individual books, it will 
be sufficient for you in all matters of wisdom.” 
Anke Lenssens:     The “Cura pastoralis” Fragment from the Archives of the Republic of Slovenia
193
centers in the area (Kos 300–301). It is possible Notker’s recommenda­
tions might have had something to do with this. There is a discrepancy 
in time between the recommendations and the writing of the Ecloga 
and the Liber Testimoniorum, so these works were not copied under 
Notker’s influence. This does not mean, however, that the introduction 
of these works is solely related to Notker. It is very likely that he simply 
propagated the usage of the works by Lathcen and Paterius because they 
were commonly seen as valuable and useful by the monks at St. Gall. 
The tradition of using these works could certainly date from before the 
De interpretibus divinarum scripturarum was written, which was defi­
nitely before Salomon became the bishop of Konstanz in 890 (Migne, 
Patrologiae Volume 131 993–994). These recommendations from St. 
Gall could have easily found their way into Freising, as there is earlier 
proof of close ties between the monastery and the Freising scriptorium. 
In fact, all the different writing schools in the Southwestern part of the 
Carolingian Empire were well connected (Golob, Srednjeveški rokopisi 
182). It is therefore plausible to assume that Freising started copying 
the works of Paterius and Lathcen under the influence of the monastery 
of St. Gall. Therefore, it seems possible that the South­West German 
writing school we are looking for, is indeed the one of Freising. Due 
to a lot of similarities between the writing style of MS 6 and our frag­
ment and the fact that the work of Lathcen was also propagated from 
St. Gall, we could carefully think about a Freising origin of the Ecloga 
(MS 6) as well. If we assume both manuscripts found their way into 
what is now Slovenia, it most likely happened after 973, so more than 
one hundred years after the manuscripts were created. The only pos­
sible explanation for this, could be the fact that older versions of impor­
tant works were sent to the newer churches and religious centers in 
the peripheral areas of a bishopric (Golob, “Karolinški fragment” 280). 
This is what could have happened to both the manuscript of the De 
interpretibus divinarum scripturarum where fragment AS 1073, II–1r 
was part of, as the Ecloga (MS 6). 
Of course, a definitive answer to the origin of the fragment shall 
probably never be given, but a Freising provenance seems to be the 
most plausible option so far. It is possible both works could have been 
used for the training of new local Slavic clergy or perhaps German clergy 
that proceeded their further education on the spot. This last possibil­
ity springs to mind because of a canon from the Council of Reims in 
813. It says that the clergy should study to be able to better understand 
its duties. The works that are fit for study, are explicitly mentioned: 
the Bible, the canons, the Rule of Benedict, the Regula Pastoralis of 
PKn, letnik 47, št. 2, Ljubljana, avgust 2024
194
Gregory the Great and other writings of the Church Fathers. In this 
study through readings there should also be a particular focus on Mass, 
baptism, penance and the eight cardinal sins (von Hefele 758–759). 
However, where exactly the manuscripts were used is difficult to say, as 
it is very much possible that certain sites of religious training got lost 
through the ages. 
Conclusion
Now that we know the true content of the fragment and have an idea 
of its provenance, it can be seen as much more than just the oldest 
manuscript fragment on Slovenian soil. It is a new addition to the man­
uscript tradition of De interpretibus divinarum scripturarum of Paterius 
of Brescia and hints towards a Freising provenance. Because of this 
more thorough examination of the fragment, it was possible to link it 
content wise and especially on a visual and paleographical level to MS 
6 from the NUK that contains the Ecloga by Lathcen. 
WORKS CITED
Aris, Marc­Aeilko. “Notker Balbulus.” Neue Deutsche Biographie, 19th ed., edited by 
Franz Menges, Duncker & Humblot, 1999, p. 362.
Blaznik, Pavle. Zemljiška gospostva v območju freisinške dolenjske posesti. Slovenska aka­
demija znanosti in umetnosti, 1958.
Boudinhon, Auguste. “Notaries.” The Catholic Encyclopedia: An International Work 
of Reference on the Constitution, Doctrine, Discipline, and History of the Catholic 
Church, vol. 11, edited by Charles George Herbermann, New York, The 
Encyclopedia Press, pp. 222–223.
Castaldi, Lucia.“Lathcen.” La trasmissione dei testi latini del Medioevo, edited by Lucia 
Castaldi and Paolo Chiesa, Sismel, 2012, pp. 374–387.
Castaldi, Lucia, and Fabrizio Martello. “Tempera quasi aurum: origine, redazione 
e diffusione del ‘Liber testimoniorum’ di Paterio.” Filologia mediolatina. Rivista 
della Fondazione Ezio Franceschini, vol. 18, 2011, pp. 23–107.
Étaix, Raymond. “Le Liber testimoniorum de Paterius.” Revue des sciences religieuses, 
vol. 32, no. 1, 1958, pp. 66–78. 
Golob, Nataša. “Karolinški fragment ‘Cura pastoralis’.” Arhivi, vol. 25, no. 1, 2002, 
pp. 277–281.
Golob, Nataša. “Srednjeveški pergamentni fragmenti v knjižnih vezavah.” Zgodovinski 
časopis, vol. 71, 2017, pp. 70–104.
Golob, Nataša. Srednjeveški rokopisi in rokopisni fragmenti: Arhiv Republike Slovenije. 
Arhiv Republike Slovenije, 2018.
Gregorius I and Marc Adriaen. [S. Gregorii Magni] Moralia in Iob: libri I–X / Cura et 
studio Marci Adriaen. Brepols, 1979.
Anke Lenssens:     The “Cura pastoralis” Fragment from the Archives of the Republic of Slovenia
195
Gregorius I and Marc Adriaen. [S. Gregorii Magni] Moralia in Iob: libri XI–XXII / 
Cura et studio Marci Adriaen. Brepols, 1979.
von Hefele, Karl Joseph. Conciliengeschichte. Dritter Band (zweiter Auflage). Freiburg 
im Breisgau, Herder’sche Verlagshandlung, 1877.
Kos, Milko. “Ljubljanski rokopis Lathcenove ‘Ecloga de moralibus in Job’.” Razprave 
Znanstvenega društva za humanistične vede, vol. 2, 1925, pp. 289–302.
Lathcen and Marc Adriaen. Egloga, quam scripsit Lathcen filius Baith de Moralibus Iob 
quas Gregorius fecit. Corpus Christianorum Series Latina vol. 145. Brepols, 1969.
Martello, Fabrizio. “Paterius.” La trasmissione dei testi latini del Medioevo, edited by 
Lucia Castaldi and Paolo Chiesa, Sismel, 2012, pp. 431–446.
Mass, Josef. Das Bistum Freising in der späten Karolingerzeit. Seitz und Höfling, 1969.
Migne, Jacques­Paul. Patrologiae cursus completus ...: Series latina, Volume 131. Paris, 
Garnier fratres, 1857.
Migne, Jacques­Paul. Patrologiae cursus completus ...: Series latina, Volume 75. Paris, 
Garnier fratres, 1862.
Migne, Jacques­Paul. Patrologiae cursus completus ...: Series latina, Volume 77. Paris, 
Garnier fratres, 1862.
Migne, Jacques­Paul. Patrologiae cursus completus ...: Series latina, Volume 79. Paris, 
Garnier fratres, 1862.
Rudy, Kathryn. Piety in Pieces: How Medieval Readers Customized their Manuscripts. 
Open Book Publishers, 2016.
Sickel, Theodor. Diplomata regum et imperatorum Germaniae. Bd. 2, Tl. 1. Die 
Urkunden Otto des II. (Ottonis II. Diplomata). Hannover, Hahn, 1888.
Štih, Peter, Vasko Simoniti and Peter Vodopivec. Slovenska zgodovina: družba—poli-
tika—kultura. Inštitut za novejšo zgodovino, 2008.
Weiss, Karl Theodor, and Wisso Weiss. Handbuch der Wasserzeichenkunde. VEB 
Fachbuchverlag, 1962.
Fragment »Cura pastoralis« iz Arhiva Republike 
Slovenije: povsem drugačna zgodba
Ključne besede: krščanska književnost / srednjeveški rokopisi / 9. stol. / fragmenti / 
Gregor Veliki / Paterij iz Brescie / Lathcen: Ecloga / Trbovlje / Freising
Fragment »Cura pastoralis« je najstarejši rokopisni odlomek na Slovenskem in 
se hrani v Arhivu Republike Slovenije pod številko AS 1073, II–1r. Sestavljen 
je iz enega bifolija. Ena stran je zelo poškodovana, saj je bil fragment nekoč 
uporabljen za vezavo knjige, ki je med letoma 1669 in 1704 služila kot 
poročna knjiga mesta Trbovlje. Matično knjigo še vedno hranijo v Nadško­
fijskem arhivu v Mariboru. Bifolium je katalogiziran kot fragment rokopisa 
iz 9. stoletja, ki vsebuje »Cura pastoralis« Gregorja Velikega. Vendar pa se je 
po temeljiti raziskavi izkazalo, da gre v resnici za del dela Paterija iz Brescie, 
PKn, letnik 47, št. 2, Ljubljana, avgust 2024
196
prvega tajnika Gregorja Velikega, ki je morda luč sveta ugledalo v freisinškem 
skriptoriju. Med odlomkom in najstarejšim celotnim rokopisom na Sloven­
skem, Latchenovo Eclogo, ki je nastala v istem obdobju, in sicer ob koncu prve 
polovice 9. stoletja, je nekaj fizičnih in vsebinskih podobnosti.
1.01 Izvirni znanstveni članek / Original scientific article
UDK  27-29:930.25(4)“8“ 
821.124.09:091
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/pkn.v47.i2.10