THE TRANSMISSION AND RECEPTION OF THE DE INSTITUTIONE CLERICORUM TRANSMISSIÓ I RECEPCIÓ DE DE INSTITUTIONE CLERICORUM

Rabanus Maurus, known as primus praeceptor Germania, composed his De Institutione Clericorum in AD 819. Although in modern literature is mentioned as a sort of Liberal Arts encyclopedia, the truth is that it is rather a handbook conceived for the education of young clerics preparing for the priesthood. Rabanus’ influence was wide and deep in the Carolingian Empire, as at least some parts of the Glossa ordinaria seem to come from him directly or indirectly. In this article we study the dissemination of this text, giving special attention to the preserved manuscripts and trying to discover the routes and mechanisms by which the text spread across the Carolingian Empire.

The De Institutione Clericorum has come to us in different recensions, which at their time can be sub-divided into several families of manuscripts: 1 1 The original form, which derives more or less directly from Rabanus' archetype in Fulda or the copy that he sent to archbishop Haistulf, without further re-elaboration (the oldest editions, together with the original text, insert an "Addition de missa" between book I.33 and book II.2, that, however, is not to be found in any of the manuscripts with the original edition).
2 Excerpts or fragments where the original arrangement of material is not substantially altered.

S
St. Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, 286. Origin: second quarter of the 9 th c., Regensburg, written by the same hand than M2.
M2 and S, although none of them can be considered a copy of the other, are so similar in their readings that can be considered sister manuscripts, being both copies from a common exemplar (called X2 by Zimpel), which at its time was very closely related to the exemplar of M1 (called X1 by Zimpel).

Fi
Florenz, Bibl. Med. Laur., Ashburnham,[8][9], Origin: third quarter of the 9 th century, West Germany. The writing has symptoms that allow us to think of an Insular exemplar. In the case of this manuscript, we are indeed in front of a quite extraordinary version because it follows the so-called Redaction "F" in book I, 11-20 and 22-24 and book II, 2-15, and the original version in the rest.
1.12 Av Avranches, Bibliothèque Municipale, 114. Origin: 12 th century, Mont-St.-Michel. Also within this branch, several of the surviving manuscripts can be grouped in pairs of sister manuscripts, copied from a common exemplar, now lost. These are Fi-K1 (copies of Zimpel's Y1'), An-Av (of Y6) and P3-P4 (of Y7). Of the rest, P2 is a sister of Y6 (that is, An-Av parent), both being descendant of a hypothetical Y5, which at its time would have been a sister manuscript of P1; and finally, P2 is so to say a sister of Y7 (parent of P3-P4). For a visual representation of the relations between manuscripts, one should resort to Zimpel's stemma codicum, inserted here as well. The need of Y1' rests on very few variants common in Fi and K1 that are absent from the rest of the manuscripts of this branch, all of which derive ultimately from Y1; on the other side, Y1' could not have been a direct copy of the archetype (A), because in a few cases the readings offered by X1 seem to be better than those of Y1-Y1', and if these two got the errors independently of each other it is necessary to suppose that they were already present in A, in which case there is no way to explain the fact that X1 has the correct reading. Finally, it must be added that the copyist of Y7 inserted so many changes in the text that with hardly any exceptions its two daughter manuscripts (P3-P4) are rendered useless for any critical edition.

ExcErpts and fragMEnts
The existing excerpts and fragments and the chapters there contained are listed here: 2.1 Budapest, Landesbibliothek im Nationalmuseum, Lat. Med. Aev. 316 (fol. 52v) (I, 14-16 beginning). Origin: first half of the 9 th century, Salzburg.
2.10 Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, 1640 (fols. 135v-136v) (I, 15-23) falls again in the X side. Origin: 12 th century. As far as it is possible to say, all these excerpts seem to follow the original redaction; however, it is possible that in those cases where the excerpted material is common to both the De Institutione Clericorum and the De Sacris Ordinibus the original source is the latter instead of the former work.

thE rhEnish rEcEnsion
In this version, chapter beginnings remain for the most part unaltered, but the text has been shortened, many Bible quotations omitted, and book III is missing altogether. In Düsseldorf, Trier, London and Cologne Dombibliothek book I,33 is complemented with the "Additio de Misa" consisting on extracts of Amalar's Liber officialis 3,31.
Of all seven only Düsseldorf, Trier and London contain the whole version; the rest have gaps.
As for the determining variant readings, all the manuscripts of this Rhenish redaction fall in the Y side of the stemma, nearer K1 than any other existing manuscript.

thE "f" rEcEnsion
This recension, baptised as "F" by Knoepfler after manuscript Fulda, Aa 2, is the most widespread version of the De Institutione Clericorum, and the best represented since it has been preserved (at least partially) in not less than 22 manuscripts:  , 52, 53, 14, 15, 17, 19, 26, 28, 29, 32, 37, 41-46, 48)  This recension, which finishes in book III, chapter 4, is still more reduced than the Rhenish one. Some quite long text sections have been totally swept away or summarized in just few words, and the Bible quotations reduced to the minimum necessary; relative clauses are substituted by participles... Some chapters, like the very long last one about the heresies at the end of book II, have totally vanished. In some other cases, the material has been rearranged in order to economize space. One characteristic of Rabanus' style is to offer in the beginning of a chapter the overall explanatory terms and to come back afterward to the same concepts augmented with specific details.
The anonymous editor keeps the initial concept, but finishes it immediately with the same material provided by Rabanus, and then passes to the second concept, and so on. Surprisingly enough the four remaining chapters from book III are virtually identical to Rabanus' original composition.
As terminus ante quem, this recension was composed is year 865, the date of Ms. Fuldensis Aa 2, but this presupposes an earlier exemplar.

raBanus' dE sacris ordiniBus
This adaptation of parts of materials performed by the same Rabanus when he had already been ordered Archbishop of Mainz for his Chorbishop Thiotmar, contains basically book I of the De Institutione Clericorum in its original fashion, to which some new chapters are added.
The De Sacris Ordinibus has been preserved in the following manuscripts: 5.6 London, British Library, Arundel 360 (fols. 32r-41v). Origin, 12 th century, In those passages taken from De Institutione Clericorum, the textual variants look to be akin to Y1.

thE English connExion
There are some excerpts that clearly do not belong to the main or original recension, but that have been transmitted within Archbishop Wulfstan's Handbook, which for its variant readings is quite far from the original tradition of the De Institutione Clericorum (SAUER, 1980: 341-384).
The list of the manuscripts that contain these excerpts is the following: Origin: first half of the 11 th century, Exeter (England).

lost Manuscripts
To start with, we have lost Rabanus' archetype (7.1) (A in the stemma codicum). One could argue that it could have gone to Archbishop Haistulf, but that is improbable, mainly because Rabanus specifies in his prologue that he undertook the task of composing it to the benefit of the brothers preparing for receiving the holy orders, and besides he seems to have considered the De Institutione as a working text for himself, as is proven by the fact that he reused it for his De Sacris Ordinibus. Another question is if Rabanus' original manuscript ended up in Mainz when he was consecrated archbishop there, which is a quite reasonable thought, but comes up against the fact that in its variants De sacris ordinibus agrees with the readings of Y1, and therefore one should conclude that Rabanus left the original in Fulda and took with him a copy of the "Y" branch (which we shall consider as 7.2).
Mainz must have had also at least the copy that Rabanus gave to Archbishop Haistulf (7.4), maybe on the occasion of the consecration of the new church in Fulda, on November the first 819. And we have already speculated with the idea that Rabanus could have taken another copy with him when he was ordained archbishop in that see.
From comparing the existing manuscripts, we already came to mention some others that have perished, but whose existence is needed to justify the differences in the readings of the surviving ones. Here are they listed, together with the few hints that can be added in relation to their date and place of origin. 7.4 X1. Must have been in Fulda, since there it served as the model for M1. In spite of being a very early copy, almost contemporary to Rabanus' original manuscript, it was a careless one.
7.5 X2. Copied from X1 also in a very early stage, since served as a model for M2 and S, that are dated in the second quarter of the 9 th century; and because these two were written in Regensburg, we can pose the hypothesis that ether it was copied in Fulda and shortly after exported to Regensburg, or copied in Regensburg from an exemplar borrowed from Fulda. 7.6 Y1. Copied at a very early stage, and probably directly from A, was indubitably a very good copy, almost error-free (ZIMPEL, 1996: 99, can only find three readings that presumably were more accurate in X1 than in Y1), and its writing must have had Insular elements, for which cannot go further than the middle years of the 9 th century, and for the same reason it must come from one of the Irish or Anglo-Saxon monastic foundations in the Continent, and Fulda still is the most reasonable place to consider. 7.7 Y1'. Must have shown still some Insular influence in its palaeography (ZIMPEL, 1996: 95, 175f, 179-181, 267), what is already a clue of its early origin, probably still in the first half of the 9 th century, although if this comes from having being copied in a scriptorium with Insular influence or it is just consequence of a slavish copying process from its model we cannot say. Because it is the parent of Fi (West Germany, 9 th c. 2/2) and K1 (Cologne, 9 th c. ex. or 10 th c. in.) we could venture that it was already native from the Rhenish area or at least that it had traveled there to serve as (partial) model for Fi still before the end of the 9 th century. Zimpel (1996: 240-241) cautiously adds that it is possible that this manuscript could have been among the losses that the Cathedral library of Cologne suffered after Hittorp's edition, since he specifies that he had used two manuscripts from the Cathedral Library of Cologne and that none of them contained the "Additio de missa" (1996:148-149). 7.8 Y2. Probably not later than 850, since P1 is from the second half of the 9 th century, and between Y2 and P1 is at least Y3. Regretfully, its birthplace must remain unknown. 7.9 Y3. In any case must have been copied before the P1, which dates from the second half of the 9 th century. Because P1 comes from Bourges, its model must at least being there at a certain point of its existence, and because all its existing descendants (An, Av, P5) are of French origin Y3 must have remained on French floor, at least to be copied for Y5 as well.
7.10 Y4. Zimpel places it in the stemma codicum somewhat earlier than year 900, and because in the 11 th century in Moissac it served as an exemplar for P2, must have made its way to it between ca. 900 and ca.1000; it is therefore not abusive to pose for it a French. 7.11 Y5: As exemplar for P5 and Y6, was surely older than An, ana B. Sánchez-prieto The transmission and reception of the De Institutione Clericorum which is itself from the 10 th century. Its only surviving descendant is P5, native maybe of the North-West area of France, although of the 12 th century. If -as we have ventured -its model (Y3) was already French, so Y5 must have been as well. 7.12 Y6. As parent manuscript of An must have been in existence somewhat after year 900. Again it must have been French if again our supposition of a French origin for Y5 and Y3 is correct. 7.13 Y7. This was quite a defective copy, or its copyist took too many liberties in the process. Zimpel places it in time shortly after the year 1000, but nothing can be ascertained in relation to its birthplace. 7.14 And there must have been more copies in Fulda or in its surroundings, apart from the defective ones in the X side of the stemma codicum, since Munich, Lat. 14716 (that according to Bischoff could have been copied in the area of Fulda) has to be located somewhere between Y1 and Y2.
And finally it is still possible to recover a handful of dispersed pieces of information about some other copies that are now lost: 7.15 Humbert of Würzburg refers to the De Institutione Clericorum in a letter sent to Rabanus (MGH, Ep. 5, Epistolae Karolini aevi III, pp. 439-440). Obviously it was a complete version, and also obviously from the 9 th century. Given the fact that Humbert shows a true enthusiasm, we may take for granted that he owned a copy, which might have been done in Würzburg or anywhere else. Because of the dates it is not impossible that Humbert´s copy is indeed our M2 or S, but this doesn´t seem very probable, and therefore we count it among the lost manuscripts. 7.16 Among the books listed in Sankt-Gallen in 841-872 is a Rhabani de Ordinibus Ecclesiasticis. (LEHMAN, 1918: 89), which must have been a copy of the De Sacris Ordinibus. Again, it is not impossible that this book is actually Viena, Österrieichische National bibliothek, 1073, but it is not probable.

A Rabanus De Institutione
Clericorum is listed in the catalog of the Bibliotheca monasterii cuiusdam Anglici, of the 12 th century. From the meager information offered by this list it is not possible to ascertain anything about the age or homeland of this manuscript, but it is still a good proof that the complete recension of the De Institutione Clericorum (and not just Wulfstan's recension) was known in England in the 12 th century, if not earlier.  (LEHMAN, 1918:197). By no means is it sure that it was a De Institutione, but it is not impossible either.

rEcEption of thE De InstItutIone ClerICorum
The mere existence of the Rhenish recension and the recension F of the De Institutione Clericorum points already in the direction that our treatise was considered as a study book widely accepted, at least in sacramental and ecclesiastical matters. It should be therefore surprising if our author did not exert some influence on later authors also concerned with educational issues within the ranks of the Catholic hierarchy.
Some of the authors that show this influence as listed in the following lines: 3 8.1 Pseudo-Bede's De septem ordinibus, included in the second part his Exerptiones partum, flores ex diversis quaestiones et parabola, which is a varied assortment of queries, 4 a short piece about the clerical dress drawn apparently from recension "F" -although there is still a possibility that the "F" recension draws from Pseudo-Bede, and not the other way around (ZIMPEL, 1996: 113-116)-. Bayles andLapidge (1998) have dated this part after 820, judging on the inclusion in it of some passages taken from Amalarius of Metz's Liber officialis, but the piece has been dated at different points between the 8 th and the 12 th century. 8.4 Cod. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Lat. 2449 is a collection of canons copied in Lyon at the end of the 9 th century or beginnings of the 10 th , which contains as well a short explanation of the episcopate influenced by De Institutione (REYNOLDS, 1975: 321-332;ZIMPEL, 1996: 117).
8.5 Archbishop's Wulfstan's Handbook, composed for the use of parish priests in hearing confession and determining penances in the early 11 th century (HEYWORTH: 2007;SAUER: 1980), contains among many other materials excerpts of book II of the De Institutione (see also above under the paragraph "The English connexion"). 8.6 Gerbert of Aurillac, in his Libellus de corpore et sanguine domini draws brief paraphrases from I,31 (ZIMPEL, 1996: 119). They are so short that do not constitute a real proof of Gerbert's acquaintance with Rabanus, but on the other side can be taken as a hint of the wide acceptance of Rabanus' handbook in clerical circles. 8.7 The Liber Quare (ed. G.P. GÖTZ: 1983) that originated in the surroundings of the school of St. Anselm of Laon (ca. 1050-1117), con-tains in its original recension some quotations from the De Institutione, that have been augmented in the later recension "T", from around 1200. For example, Additio 29 follows closely De Institutione I, 14-23. Zimpel (1996: 124) points out to the possibility that this text could have been drawn not directly from the De Institutione Clericorum, but from Pseudo-Bede (ZIMPEL, 1996: 123-125 8.11 Gratian's Decretum, written probably in Bologna in the 12 th century, quotes Rabanus' work no less than seven times by name and title, especially from book I, caps. 25, 27, 29 and 30 (ZIMPEL, 1996: 126).
8.15 Thomas of Aquinas' Summa mentions Rabanus by name almost 400 times, fewer times less for example than Isidore of Seville, and also in his Catena aurea in Mattheum. Surely got Aquinas acquainted with Rabanus during the time he studied under Albertus Magnus in Cologne (ZIMPEL, 1996: 130-133).
8.17 Durandus de St. Porciano, at the beginning of the 14 th century, uses also some paragraphs, but most probably he quotes indirectly, with Gratian's Decretum as his primary source (ZIMPEL, 1996: 134).

conclusion: rEcEption of thE De InstItutIone ClerICorum
Rabanus work must have had an almost immediate reception in many ecclesiastical institutions of the Carolingian empire. To start with, its success is made evident by the mere existence of different recensions, since, besides the original one we have encountered the so-called Rhenish and "F" recensions together with Archbishop Wulfstan´s. And to those we must add the re-elaboration performed by Rabanus for his De Sacris Ordinibus, and in a lesser measure for his De Ecclesiastica Disciplina. In the same direction points the abundance of excerpts and fragments and reminiscences in later authors.
As a consequence of this success, the diffusion of the De Institutione Clericorum was fast and broad from the first years after its composition, as prove the more than one hundred witnesses mentioned in the previous pages.
Fulda and Mainz were the original nucleus from which the De Institutione Clericorum disseminated, and especially Fulda, because together with Ra-banus´ original (7.1) and the copy that he presented to archbishop Histulf (7.2), we still have manuscript M1 (1.1), which was copied in that scriptorium, which in spite of being a pretty careless copy, it was made in the first third of the 9 th century, and also the excerpts 2.2 from the middle years of the same century and the slightly later 2.3; and from Fulda were also the now lost X1 (7.4), Y1 (7.6), and 7.14, all from the 9 th century as well.
Then, from Fulda, Rabanus´ work spread very quickly and with considerable success across the Carolingian empire. Traveling to the South-West, the De Institutione Clericorum arrived at Regensburg, where it was copied several times from the second quarter of the 9 th century, and that is the origin of the tween manuscripts M2 (1.2) and S (1.3). St. Emmeram also had copies of the De Sacris Ordinibus (5.3) in the 10 th century, and of the "F" recension in the 11 th (4.11), and Prüfening was in possession of a complete De Institutione in the 12 th (7.22).
On its way to Regensburg, or maybe from there, our book came to the hands of bishop Humbert of Würzburg (7.15), who, given the enthusiasm he shows for it, must have used it for the education of his clerics. And still in the same general direction and within the limits of the 9 th century, the De Institutione Clericorum reached Salzburg because it was excerpted there (2.1) at some point before year 850.
To the North, the De Institutione Clericorum was adapted in the so-called Rhenish recension not later than 850 because 3.1 is from the second third (or at most the third third) of the 9 th century. And the same recension was copied in Trier (3.3) and Cologne (3.2), and both copies are from the 9 th century too (apart from several others that come from the 13 th century), but the original text was also known in this area, at least in Cologne, in the 10 th century (1.6).
Also from Fulda, or maybe from Mainz, the text traveled to the South. It was in Lorsch before the end of the 9 th century (7.16), and somewhere in that area it was reworked and abbreviated in the "F" recension, since its oldest witnesses come from Bodensee (4.3), Reichenau (4.1), Sankt-Gallen (4.4) and other centers of South Germany (4.5, 4.6), and finally it arrived in Upper Italy (4.2). 6 To the West of Mainz the dissemination seems to have been somewhat slower, but in any case, Fi (1.5) was there as early as the third quarter of the 9 th century, after suffering some reorganization of the materials. And still within the limits of the 9 th century we find the De instituione in Trier, in the so-called Rhenish recension (3.3) and Metz (5.2) (actually these two cases are copies of the De Sacris Ordinibus).
Still further to the South-West, we find copies in Bourges (P1 0 1.4) and Lyon (8.4), and it is possible that it was in this area where the noble lady Dhuoda (8.4) had the chance to read it. But there are more pieces of evidence of the presence of the De Institutione on French floor already in the 9 th century (Y3=7.9).
During the 10 th , in spite of all its turbulence and convulsions, the De Institutione Clericorum kept on spreading although not so spectacularly.
To the North, it reached Braunsweig (4.7), and Rheims, in France, where Gerbert of Aurillac could see it (8.6), 7 and also Angers (An=1.7) and Moissac (Y4=7.10). Y6 (7.12) can also be considered of French origin and from the 10th century.
However, the most significant advance was to the South, since the book is found in North Italy (4.8), to reach Rome at some point near the year 1000 (2.5).
Then, in the 11 th century, we find many instances of the De Institutione Clericorum in the already mentioned areas, but especially it advanced in direction North-West: Liege, where we find it in the hands of Rupert of Deutz (8.8),and Bec (8.7,8.9), 8 and, of course, in England, where it was used by Archbishop Wulfstan of York, and were another brand of the transmission is found (6.1-6.4).
Finally, in the 12 th century, Rabanus´ text had arrived in Esrom, in Denmark (2.9).

Georgius Simler
The first printed edition of the De Institutione Clericorum came to light in as soon as 1504 in Pforzheim. The early date can be taken as a token of the esteem Rabanus Maurus held in. The complete title was: Rabani Mauri Archiepiscopi Maguntini De Institutione Clericorum opusculum aureum.
But for this edition Georg Simler used mainly Codex Düsseldorf, B 113, and 8 That St. Anselm had seen the De institutione clericorum in Bec is an assumption based on the fact that Ivo of Chartres studied there with St. Anselm. It seems therefore a more "economic" option than considering that St. Anselm and Ivo had 'known the De institutione independently from each other.
Trier, 592/1578, which does not transmit Rabanus' original recension, but the so-called Rhenish recension, but because the manuscripts on which he based his edition do not contain an otherwise characteristic alteration in chapter I,32, it is also missing in it. And because his manuscript contained the "Additio de missa," it is also in Simler's edition.
But Georg Simler did not publish just one edition of the De Institutione, but two. Scarcely one year after the first one had left the presses, Simler came to another manuscript that transmitted Rabanus' original recension and published it in 1505 with the title of Hrabani Mauri De Institutione Clericorum libri tres, also in Pforzheim.
The manuscript that served Simler as a reference for this second edition is not known. It certainly had a peculiar arrangement of the preliminary pieces, and for its readings, it was very close to Y2 in the stemma codicum (ZIMPEL, 1996: 144-145). If it contained the "Additio de missa" is another question. It was certainly included in this 1505 edition, but Simler knew it from the previous one; therefore, if he found it in his exemplar or took it from the Rhenish recension will remain in the darkness.

Johannes Prael
A new edition of the For his edition Prael used a now lost manuscript very near the archetype that in its variants was also very close to the present K1, although the preliminary pieces were in a different order: preface to the brethren of Fulda, dedication to archbishop Haistulf and list of chapters (ZIMPEL, 1996: 146-147). However, Prael used K1 as well, and therefore his edition doesn't make possible to reconstruct that lost manuscript.
In the prologue to this edition, Hittorp specifies that in order to reconstruct Rabanus' text he used, together with the already existing editions, two manuscripts from the Cathedral library of Cologne, none of which had the "Additio de missa," which he must have therefore taken from Prael or Simler. Now, the only manuscript with this characteristic that survives in Cologne is Erzbischöfliche Diözesan-und Dombibliothek, 110; therefore one must assume that the other one has perished, and that regretful event must have taken place already before 1752, since it is not mentioned in the 1752 catalog of the Cathedral Library of Cologne (HUISH, 1752). And as in the case of Prael's edition, it is not possible to reconstruct that lost manuscript from Hittorp's, because also used the pre-existing editions, and he doesn't specify how. The only thing that can be ascertained is that it must have had some readings similar to those of the origins of the X branch of the stemma (ZIMPEL, 1996: 148-149

George Colvener
The next edition went in charge of George Colvener in 1626/27. Again he took as a departure point a manuscript of the Y side of the stemma, although it is difficult to ascertain which one, but he relied heavily on Prael's edition (ZIMPEL, 1996: 150-151).
Colvener's edition was reprinted with very scarce and small modifications in the Patrologia Latina of Migne (vol. 107,.

Alois Knoepfler
The first proper critical edition is that of Alois Knoepfler of Munich, 1900.
Knoepfler not only used all the manuscripts known in his time (except Fi), but he also provides a critical apparatus and a study of the sources. It is good enough to have served as a standard reference for almost a hundred years.

Detlev Zimpel
The latest edition is due to Detlev Zimpel and saw the light in 1996. Zimpel's is a meticulous work that taking K1 as Leithandschrift, uses all the previous editions as well as all the manuscripts available, including those that in the time of Knoepfler were not known, and provides all the variant readings as well as a stemma codicum and a detailed analysis of the sources.
Unless we had the fortune of finding a new codex still unknown which turned to be really very close to the archetype, it is difficult to think off a more exact edition than this one.

Translations
To our knowledge, up to this moment, De Institutione Clericorum has been translated to three modern languages.
The first translation, to Italian, is due to Luigi Samarati (2002). It was made taking as departure point Detlev Zimpel's edition of 1996 and is preceded by a brief introduction (p. 5-19) with a summary of Rabanus' biography and a sketch of his work. This text adds as well a simplified apparatus fontium and some explanatory notes.
The second translation, to German, is due to Detlez Zimple (2006). It is actually a bilingual edition in Latin and German on a double page setting, with the Latin text (which is identical to the edition of 1996) at the left and the German translation at the right. Although the apparatus fontium reproduces the one included in the edition of 1996, it also has some new additions, but the critical apparatus is missing. The introduction reproduces as well the introduction from the edition of 1996.
Finally, the third translation, into Spanish, is due to the same author of this article and was the Ph. D. dissertation defended in the Madrid, Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED) in 2014. It comes also in a double page setting, with the Latin text on the left page and the Spanish translation on the right page. The critical apparatus included is for the most part taken from Zimpel (with his approval), but it has been simplified, although the variant readings from the most important editions have been added. The Spanish text is accompanied by explanatory notes that deal in depth with subjects that are not easily understandable by the modern reader, and everything is preceded by a lengthy introductory study. In brief, this work will be published by the Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos, in Madrid.