Recent Work On The Making Of
Gratian’s Decretum
Anders Winroth
The last twenty-five years have been twenty-five very
good years for the study of Gratian and his Concord of
Discordant Canons.1 Today we know a great deal more about the
Decretum than twenty-five years ago, although Gratian himself
has become even more enigmatic than ever.
Twenty-five years ago, Gratian scholars thought that they
knew their man. He was a Camaldolese monk with his home in a
known monastery in Bologna. But in 1979, John Noonan
published an article demonstrating that this man was a myth built
up over the centuries.2 About Gratian, we can only know with
any certainty that he composed the Decretum in Bologna in the
1130s and the 1140s, and that he was a teacher with theological
knowledge and a lawyer’s point of view. Nothing much has been
added to Noonan's portrait, except for cautious suggestions that
Gratian might have been a monk or a bishop, but real evidence is
lacking for either view.3
Twenty years ago, at the Congress in Cambridge in 1984,
Stephan Kuttner gave a magisterial lecture about the accomplishments of Gratian research during the previous half-century
1
This paper was given at the Twelfth International Congress of Medieval
Canon Law, Washington, D.C., on August 5, 2004. I have kept the oral format
of the lecture. I wish to thank John Dillon, Paul Freedman, Melodie Harris,
Ken Pennington, and Robert Somerville for their kind comments on drafts of
this article. They do not necessarily agree with my conclusions.
2
John T. Noonan, ‘Gratian slept here: The changing identity of the
father of the systematic study of canon law’, Traditio 35 (1979) 145-172.
3
Anders Winroth, The Making of Gratian’s Decretum (Cambridge
2000) 5-8. Enrique De Leon, ‘La biografia di Graziano’, edd. Enrique De
Leon and Nicolás Álvarez de las Asturias, La cultura giuridico-canonica
medioevale: Premesse per un dialogo ecumenico (Milan 2003) 89-107.
2
BULLETIN OF MEDIEVAL CANON LAW
and about what still remained to be done.4 He drew up a fivepoint program for future research on the Decretum. I want to take
this opportunity to take stock of what has been done since then
and what still needs more research. I will deal with one point at a
time, and I will take the liberty of going through them
backwards.
Kuttner’s fifth and last point asked for Gratian’s immediate sources: where did Gratian find the texts that he copied into
the Decretum? Earlier scholars tended to think that Gratian used
a large library of canonical collections. In 1984, Peter Landau
suggested that it makes better sense to presume that Gratian used
only a small number of sources. He tested this assumption by
applying a set of well-defined criteria for identifying the source
of a canon.5 Using this method, he was able to demonstrate that
most of the canons in the Decretum derive from Anselm of
Lucca’s collection, Ivo of Chartres’s Panormia, the Tripartita,
Gregory of St. Grisogono's Polycarpus, and the Collection in
Three Books. In specific sections of his work, Gratian also used
Isidore’s Etymologies, the work of Alger of Liège, and the Sententiae magistri A. Further research has confirmed the validity of
Landau’s elegant demonstration. There remain, however, several
dozen canons for which no source can be found. This state of
affairs is annoying to many, but – I suspect – to no one more than
to Peter Landau himself. He has published a series of articles
discussing possible sources for one group of such canons after
another, for example Burchard’s Decretum and the writings of
Ambrose of Milan.6
4
Stephan Kuttner, ‘Research on Gratian: Acta and agenda’,
Proceedings Cambridge (MIC Series C 8; Vatican City 1988) 3-26; reprinted
in Kuttner, Studies in the History of Medieval Canon Law (Collected Studies
325; Aldershot 1990) no. V.
5
Peter Landau, ‘Neue Forschungen zu vorgratianischen Kanonessammlungen und den Quellen des gratianischen Dekrets’, Ius commune 11
(1984) 1-29.
6
For references, see the bibliography appended to this essay.
RECENT WORK ON GRATIAN’S DECRETUM
3
Study of Gratian’s immediate sources has greatly benefited from the edition of several of them. I am thinking of Robert
Kretzschmar’s 1986 edition of the De misericordia et iustitia by
Alger of Liège, and the partial edition of the Sententiae magistri
A. by Paule Maas in 1995. Even more important than these completed and printed editions are the editions under work by Martin
Brett and Bruce Brasington of the Collectio Tripartita and the
Panormia of Ivo of Chartres, which with characteristic
generosity they have made available to the scholarly world.
Another similarly important tool is Linda Fowler-Magerl’s CDROM, Clavis canonum, which contains entries recording the
inscription, incipit, and explicit of more than 100,000 canons
found in many dozens of collections from the period 1000-1140.
The study of Gratian’s sources rests on solid ground
As his fourth point, Kuttner asked for some way of
managing the overwhelming number of extant manuscripts of the
Decretum, in order to establish the text of a much desired new
edition. We now know the manuscript tradition much better than
in 1984, mostly thanks to the research of the much missed Rudolf
Weigand, who studied in person or on microfilm more than 200
of the oldest Gratian manuscripts. His purpose was to study the
glosses to the Decretum that were produced before the Ordinary
Gloss of Johannes Teutonicus (ca. 1216). This project resulted in
numerous articles and, most importantly, in his two-volume work
Die Glossen zum Dekret Gratians published in 1991. Weigand’s
manuscript descriptions make up a sound foundation for further
research, in effect replacing parts of Kuttner’s 1937 Repertorium.
Manuscript work still continues, especially in the project led by
Carlos Larrainzar at the Instituto de Derecho Europeo Clásico,
Tenerife.
In contrast, much more work is needed to address
Kuttner’s third point, which asks for Gratian’s purpose and
outlook. The text of the first recension contains many hints that
4
BULLETIN OF MEDIEVAL CANON LAW
Gratian 1 was familiar with ideas of the theological schools of
Northern France, as has been pointed out by Richard W.
Southern, Enrique De Leon, Titus Lenherr, myself, and others.7
He clearly knew and quoted many of the biblical glosses
produced in the circle around Anselm of Laon, and he used
several theological works as sources for his canons, including
Alger of Liège and the Sententiae magistri A. Many of the
questions Gratian posed seem to be inspired by biblical exegesis.
C.32 q.4 asks, for example, whether one is allowed to conceive
children with a maid if one’s wife is infertile, as Abraham did
with Sara’s maid Hagar, and Jacob with Rachel’s maid Bilhah.
These are some of the same questions as French theological
writers of the early twelfth century posed in their marriage
treatises. Were such questions primarily interesting for biblical
exegetes or also for practicing lawyers?
Alongside such passages are others which appear to have
been more inspired by a lawyer’s practice, such as ‘causa’ 13. As
Fred Paxton has pointed out, the argument in this ‘causa’ appears
as a back-and-forth between two parties in a lawsuit, frequently
even slipping into the first person.8 These and other hints about
Gratian's background and interests should be further explored.
The second point on Stephan Kuttner’s research program
was the date of the Decretum. In this field we know more than in
1984. Paolo Nardi recently unearthed a Siennese court decision
from 1150, which unambiguously proves that the Decretum in its
7
R. W. Southern, Scholastic Humanism and the Unification of
Europe, Vol. I, Foundations (Oxford 1995); De Leon, ‘La biografia di
Graziano’; Titus Lenherr, ‘Die Glossa Ordinaria zur Bibel als Quelle von
Gratians Dekret: Ein (neuer) Anfang’, BMCL 24 (2000) 97-129. I discussed
some aspects of this in my presentation at the XI International Congress of
Medieval Canon Law in Catania, 2000.
8
Frederick C. Paxton, ‘Le cause 13 de Gratien et la composition du
Décret’, RDC 51 (2001) 233-249.
RECENT WORK ON GRATIAN’S DECRETUM
5
second recension was known by that date.9 Since the second
recension contains numerous canons from the Second Lateran
Council of 1139, we may be certain that it was composed during
the 1140s.
The date of the first recension is more debatable. It
contains a single, very brief reference to a decision of the Second
Lateran Council of 1139 (D.63 d.p.c.34). Otherwise, the text
includes no material securely dated later than 1119.10 This leaves
the field quite open for differing interpretations. Jean Werckmeister and Ken Pennington believe, for example, that the first
recension was composed in or around the 1120s and later
interpolated with a single reference to the Lateran Council.11
Rudolf Weigand, Carlos Larrainzar, and I consider it dangerous
to hypothesize about interpolations, and we insist that the text as
it is preserved in the manuscripts could not have been finished
before 1139.12 However, we are all, I think, ready to admit that
Gratian might have started work on the Decretum before 1139,
even long before.
Both sides in this debate have good arguments, and new
evidence is probably needed to break the impasse. An interesting
approach that might lead to greater agreement is to attempt to
situate Gratian in relation to contemporary theological thinking.
Titus Lenherr has pointed to telling parallels with the biblical
9
Paolo Nardi, ‘Fonti canoniche in una sentenza senese del 1150’, ed.
Peter Linehan, Life, Law and Letters: Historical Studies in Honour of Antonio
García y García (SG 29; Rome 1998) 661-670.
10
Winroth, Making of Gratian’s Decretum 137.
11
Jean Werckmeister, ‘Les études sur le Décret de Gratien: Essai de
bilan et perspectives’, RDC 48 (1998) 372-376; Kenneth Pennington,
‘Gratian, Causa 19, and the Birth of Canonical Jurisprudence’, edd. De Leon
and Álvarez de las Asturias, La cultura giuridico-canonica medioevale, 229
and Kenneth Pennington, ‘Gratian’, DMA: Supplement (New York 2004)
246-247.
12
Rudolf Weigand, ‘Chancen und Probleme einer baldigen kritischen
Edition der ersten Redaktion des Dekrets Gratians’, BMCL 23 (1998) 66-69,
Carlos Larrainzar, ‘La formacion del Decreto de Graciano por etapas’, ZRG
Kan. Abt. 87 (2001) 80; Winroth, Making of Gratian’s Decretum 136-144.
6
BULLETIN OF MEDIEVAL CANON LAW
Glossa ordinaria lending support to the later date. Since the
chronology of the Glossa ordinaria also is problematic, this kind
of approach is complicated but potentially fruitful avenue. We
heard earlier this week about Gundula Grebner’s successful work
to fit Gratian into his Bolognese context, which also seems to
suggest a later rather than an earlier date for the first recension.13
The first point on Kuttner’s 1984 program asked about
the making of Gratian’s Decretum. He asked whether the work
was ‘drafted and completed in one grandiose thrust, or did the
original version go through successive redactions’? Titus Lenherr
began to answer this question in his 1987 Munich dissertation on
C.24 q.1, in which he demonstrated that Gratian, rather than
using all his sources at once, used them one after the other.
Gratian conceived of the question he posed on the basis solely of
three canons in the Panormia. He then added 15 canons from the
Polycarpus, and finally 18 canons from the Tripartita and the
Collection in Three Books. Lenherr was thus able to discern three
stages in the composition of this specific question.
My own dissertation built on Lenherr’s results. I observed
that two Decretum manuscripts contained a text of C.24 q.1 that
exactly corresponded to what the Decretum would have looked
like after Gratian had used the Panormia and the Polycarpus, but
before he made use of the Tripartita and the Collection in Three
Books. This observation inspired further research leading to the
conclusion that four manuscripts in Admont, Barcelona, Florence, and Paris contain an early recension of the Decretum. This
first recension differs from the previously known text in some
interesting ways, for example in its use of Roman law or, as Peter
Landau has pointed out, in its use of some patristic sources.14
13
Gundula Grebner, ‘Lay Patronate in Bologna in the first half of the
12th Century: Regular Canons, Notaries, and the Decretum’, Europa und
seine Regionen: 2000 Jahre Rechtsgeschichte, ed. Andreas Bauer and Karl H.
L. Welker (Vienna 2007) 107-122.
14
Peter Landau, ‘Patristische Texte in den beiden Rezensionen des
Decretum Gratiani’, BMCL 23 (1999) 77-84.
RECENT WORK ON GRATIAN’S DECRETUM
7
Since 1996, there has been a large number of articles
treating the two recensions and/or drawing on first-recension
manuscripts. In this field, the contributions of Carlos Larrainzar
stand out. In a series of articles, he has developed interesting
theses. He distinguishes among four stages in the development of
Gratian’s text, three of which he identifies with particular
manuscripts, and he dates them exactly:15
1142-1146
Excerpta (= St. Gall, Stiftsbibliothek 673)
1148
Concordia Fd (= Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale
Centrale, Conv. Soppr. A. 1.402 ante
correctionem)
1150
Decretum Fd (= Florence A. 1.402 post
correctionem)
1155-1165
Paleae
Larrainzar believes that the earliest version of the
Decretum is preserved in a manuscript in the monastic library of
St. Gall in Switzerland. He dates this text to 1142-1146. A
second stage is identical to the original text in the Florence
manuscript. This stage largely corresponds to what I call the first
recension. Larrainzar dates this stage to 1148. A third stage
completed in 1150 corresponds to the second recension, that is to
say, largely the text of Friedberg’s edition minus the ‘paleae’. In
a fourth stage (1155-1165), the ‘paleae’ were added.
This is an appealing thesis, since it introduces more
precise dates and relates stages in the production of individual
manuscripts to stages in the development of the text. Carlos
Larrainzar is without doubt right to identify more phases than
two in the textual history of the Decretum. That history continues
after the publication of the second recension, with the addition of
‘paleae’ and the deletion of duplicated texts. In a posthumous
15
Carlos Larrainzar, ‘La formación del Decreto de Graciano por
etapas’, ZRG Kan. Abt. 118 (2001) 80.
8
BULLETIN OF MEDIEVAL CANON LAW
article, Rudolf Weigand treated this phase (which certainly
extended further than to 1165).16
It is easy to recognize that the first recension did not
spring fully formed from Gratian’s head. Inconsistencies and
apparent after-thoughts often appear. In another posthumous
article, Weigand tentatively sketched three stages in the
composition of the first recension of the Decretum.17 First,
Gratian collected material thematically. Then he summarized this
material in larger treatises, for example ‘de coniugio’ and ‘de
hereticis’. Finally, Gratian formulated the familiar ‘causae’. In a
similar vein, Mary Sommar suggested that C.7 q.1, originally
only treated the translation of bishops and that Gratian later, but
before the publication of the first recension, added the material
about replacing a living bishop.18 John Dillon has analyzed
Gratian’s use of sources and the formulation of the case narratives introducing each ‘causa’, leading him to posit the
existence of a series of short treatises that Gratian included into
the Decretum.19 More research into the prehistory of the first
recension is desirable, although any conclusions remain
speculative until solid manuscript evidence can be found.
Against this background, it is easy to agree with
Larrainzar’s insistence on more stages than two in the textual
history of the Decretum, but is it possible to relate three of those
stages to stages in the production of specific manuscripts?
16
Rudolf Weigand, ‘Versuch einer neuen, differenzierten Liste der
Paleae und Dubletten im Dekret Gratians’, ed. Peter Linehan, Life, Law and
Letters: Historical Studies in Honour of Antonio García y García (SG 29;
Rome 1998) 883-899; reprinted in BMCL 23 (1999) 114-128.
17
Rudolf Weigand, ‘Causa 25 des Dekrets und die Arbeitsweise
Gratians’, edd. Richard H. Helmholz, Paul Mikat, Jörg Müller und Michael
Stolleis, Grundlagen des Rechts: Festschrift für Peter Landau zum 65.
Geburtstag (Paderborn 2000) 277-290.
18
Mary E. Sommar, ‘Gratians Causa VII and the Multiple Recension
Theories’, BMCL 24 (1999) 78-96.
19
John N. Dillon, ‘Case Statements (themata) and the Composition
of Gratian’s Cases’, ZRG Kan. Abt. 92 (2006) 306-339.
RECENT WORK ON GRATIAN’S DECRETUM
9
Central to Larrainzar’s discussion of the second and third
stages is the Florence manuscript of Gratian’s Decretum. In an
article published in 1998, he argued that this manuscript ‘not
only contains a first and reduced Concordia of Gratian, but is the
original manuscript, in which the author of the work construed
the later redaction of his more ample Concordia, which was later
known as the Decretum of Gratian’.20
In other words, Florence was the working manuscript of
the author and it contains many notes in his own hand. This is
why the uncorrected Florence manuscript corresponds to the
second stage, whereas the text after it has been corrected
corresponds exactly to the third stage. Indeed it is, quoting
Larrainzar, ‘the direct and immediate source of the manuscript
tradition of the vulgate Decretum’.21
Larrainzar fails to prove this contention, as I have pointed
out elsewhere.22 Today, I shall give only one example of his
arguments. If the Florence manuscript indeed was the original
manuscript of the second recension, it must predate 1150, when
this recension demonstrably was in circulation. Earlier
scholarship has, on paleographic grounds, dated the manuscript
to around the 1170s. Larrainzar endeavors to prove that it indeed
was produced in the 1140s by claiming that one of the scribal
hands in the manuscript, hand C, worked in 1148 exactly.
20
Carlos Larrainzar, ‘El Decreto de Graciano del códice Fd’ 424425: ‘el códice Fd no sólo contiene una primera y reducida Concordia de
Graciano sino es el “códice original” donde el autor de la obra ha construido
la “ulterior redacción” de su Concordia más amplia, luego conocida como
Decreto de Graciano’.
21
Carlos Larrainzar, ‘La ricerca attuale sul Decretum Gratiani’, La
cultura giuridico-canonico medioevale 79: ‘Prima, il codice fiorentino Fd è la
fonte diretta e immediata della tradizione manoscritta del Decreto
divulgato…’.
22
Anders Winroth, ‘Le manuscrit florentin du Décret de Gratien:
Une critique des travaux de Carlos Larrainzar sur Gratien, I’, RDC 51 (2001)
211-231.
10
BULLETIN OF MEDIEVAL CANON LAW
According to Larrainzar, hands A and B wrote most of
the texts of the first and second recension, respectively. Their
work was corrected by hands Gα and Gτ1, which belong to the
author of the Decretum himself; G stands for G(ratian).23
Subsequently, hand C added the division into distinctions. The
same hand C also added two canons from Pope Eugenius III’s
council at Rheims in 1148. Therefore, Larrainzar concludes, any
hand that wrote in the Florence manuscript before hand C ‘undoubtedly’ wrote before 1148.24
23
Carlos Larrainzar, ‘El borrador de la Concordia de Graciano:
Sankt Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek MS 673 (=Sg)’, Ius Ecclesiae 11 (1999) 593594: ‘ese códice florentino Conv. Soppr. A.I.402 es el “locus” a mi entender,
donde una antigua Concordia breve – cuya existencia también se detecta más
o menos en los códices Aa Bc P Pfr – se transforma en un Decretum extenso
por la personalísima acción de una de sus manos, la que entonces denominé
mano G(raciano), porque “esa” acción en “esa” códice sólo encuentra una
explicación razonable quando se considera “original” del autor de la obra:
“todos los datos confirman – decía entonces – que Fd es el “códice original”
que, conteniendo una “primera redacción” de la Concordia , fue utilizado por
su autor para elaborar la “segunda redacción” de su obra” (p. 471)’. [‘… this
Florentine manuscript Conv. Soppr. A.I.402 is the “locus”, in my opinion,
where an old, brief Concordia – whose existence also is more or less
detectable in the manuscripts Aa Bc P Pfr – was transformed into an extensive
Decretum through the personal action of one of its hands, which I then named
hand G(ratian), because “this” action in “this” manuscript finds a reasonable
explanation only when it is considered the “original” of the author of the
work: “all dates confirm – as I have already said – that Fd is the “original
manuscript” which, containing a “first redaction” of the Concordia, was used
by its author to elaborate the “second redaction” of his work” (p. 471).’] The
quotation at the end is from Larrainzar, ‘El Decreto de Graciano del códice
Fd’ 471.
24
Carlos Larrainzar, ‘El Decreto de Graciano del Codice Fd (=
Firenze, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, Conventi Soppressi A.I.402): In
memoriam Rudolf Weigand’, Ius Ecclesiae 10 (1998), 445: ‘La secuencia A
Gα Gτ1 B con anterioridad a 1148 es indudable…’. Cf. 437-438: ‘A partir del
fol.104rb la escritura cursiva boloñesa de B copia un conjunto de textos que
enriquecen y amplían la Concordia breve (ya entonces con unas “primeras”
adiciones), añadiendo ocho cuadernillos más. Como se vío, esta “colleción” de
Adiciones boloñesas es necesariamente anterior al año 1148, tal como sugiere
la datación de los cánones que cierran la última hoja conservada del
RECENT WORK ON GRATIAN’S DECRETUM
11
This is a conclusion that simply does not follow.
Larrainzar has confused the date of the council of Rheims with
the date when hand C copied decisions of that council into the
manuscript. Those dates may be far removed from each other.
This is easy to recognize if one considers that hand G on folio 5
of the Florence manuscript added a canon from the council of
Braga of 675. This does not make hand G into a seventh-century
hand. The Florence manuscript is not the author’s own working
copy.
In Larrainzar’s reconstruction, the first stage of the
composition of the Decretum is represented by manuscript 673 in
the monastic library of St. Gall in Switzerland. When Alfons
Stickler examined it in 1958, he concluded that it contains an
abbreviation of Gratian’s Decretum.25 In 1999, Larrainzar
pointed out that it contains a version of the first recension.26 I am
convinced that he is right, and this is an important discovery. He
further argued that the manuscript is not an abbreviation; it is a
version preceding the first recension, or ― in other words ―
Gratian’s first draft (‘borrador’). He fails to prove convincingly
this contention, and careful study of the manuscript shows that it
is wrong.
One of his arguments for the St. Gall text being an early
version of the Decretum focuses on C.15 q.3 d.p.c.4, which
contains a reference to ‘huius operis initium’, ‘the beginning of
this work’:
cuadernillo veintidós (fol. 167vb)’. [‘From fo. 104rb, the cursive Bolognese
script of [hand] B copies a collection of texts, which enrich and amplify the
brief Concordia (then already with a few “early” additions), adding eight
further quires. As we have seen, this “collection” of Adiciones boloñesas is
necessarily before 1148, as suggested by the date of the canons at the end of
the last leaf of quire twenty-two (fo. 167 vb).’]
25
Alfons Stickler, ‘Iter Helveticum’, Traditio 14 (1958) 462-483.
26
Larrainzar, ‘El borrador de la Concordia de Graciano’.
12
BULLETIN OF MEDIEVAL CANON LAW
C.15 q.3 d.p.c.4: ‘Sed sicut circa huius operis initium premissum
est, tociens legibus inperatorum in ecclesiasticis negociis
utendum est, quociens sacris canonibus obviare non
inveniantur’. Aa Fd Friedberg
The reference is to the D.10 c.1: ‘Lege imperatorum non in
omnibus ecclesiasticis controversiis utendum est, presertim cum
inveniantur evangelice ac canonice sanctioni aliquotiens obviari’. Aa Bc Friedberg
In the dictum in C.15, Gratian even echoes some of the language
of that canon. I have bold-faced such echoes.
In the St. Gall text, no passages from the first twenty-six
distinctions are included. As could be expected, C.15 q.3 d.p.c.4
in the St. Gall manuscript lacks the reference to the non-existent
D.10, but the sentence is otherwise almost unchanged. In other
words, the echoes of D.10 c.1, are still there. I have marked them
in boldface:
C.15 q.3 d.p.c.4 in Sg: ‘Sed totiens legibus in ecclesiasticis
ecclesiasticis [sic!] negotiis utendum est quotiens sacris
canonibus obuiare non inuenientur’.
To Larrainzar this is proof that the St. Gall text preceded
that of the first recension: ‘A simple comparison of the two
“dicta” [i.e., the d.p.c.4 in St. Gall 673 and the same “dictum” in
the first recension] demonstrates, unequivocally, the “precedence” of the redaction of Sg in comparison to the text of the
other manuscripts [i.e., the manuscripts of the first recension]’.27
In this view, the lack of the explicit reference to ‘initium huius
operis’ proves that the St. Gall text is an earlier version of the
Decretum.
27
Carlos Larrainzar, ‘El borrador de la Concordia de Graciano’ 614:
‘La sola comparación de ambos “dicta” muestra, de modo inequívoco, la
“precedencia” de la redacción de Sg frente al texto de los otros manuscritos’.
RECENT WORK ON GRATIAN’S DECRETUM
13
But the St. Gall manuscript still contains the words that
echo the language of D.10. The explicit reference is absent, but
the verbal echo and, thus, an indirect reference to D.10 are
present. This demonstrates that whoever wrote this sentence
knew the text of D.10 c.1. It is very unlikely that the St. Gall
manuscript would be Gratian's first draft.
More importantly, missing references are not an argument
for an early recension. An early draft of the Decretum might lack
cross-references, but so might an abbreviation. Any abbreviator
worth his mettle would, naturally, remove any reference that
referred to something that he had abbreviated away. This may
often be observed in other abbreviations of Gratian’s Decretum.
The abbreviation found in a manuscript in Pommersfelden in
Germany also lacks the reference to Distinction 10:
C.15 q.3 d.p.c.4 in the Pommersfelden abbreviation: ‘Tociens
legibus imperatorum in ecclesiasticis necessariis utendum est,
quociens sacris canonibus obuiare non inuenientur’.28
The abbreviator had chosen not to include that distinction, so,
naturally, he omitted the reference to it.
The absence of some cross-references in the St. Gall
manuscript does not prove that it is an early recension. Such
absences are entirely consistent with the text being an
abbreviation, as the Pommersfelden example makes clear.
Another example concerns the same ‘dictum’. In the first
recension it contains some paragraphs that were inspired by
Justinianic Roman law. Those paragraphs are missing in the St.
Gall text. Roman law was ‘new’ in the early twelfth century.
28
Ed. Alfred Beyer, Lokale Abbreviationen des ‘Decretum Gratiani’:
Analyse und Vergleich der Dekretabbreviationen ‘Omnes leges aut divine’
(Bamberg), ‘Humanum genus duobus regitur’ (Pommersfelden) und ‘De his
qui intra claustra monasterii consistunt’ (Lichtenthal, Baden-Baden), (Bamberger theologische Studien 6; Frankfurt am Main 1998) 293, on the basis of
Bibliothek des Schlosses Weissenstein zu Pommersfelden, HS 258.
14
BULLETIN OF MEDIEVAL CANON LAW
Larrainzar argues that this also makes the text in the first
recension ‘new’ in comparison to the text in the St. Gall
manuscript:
the ‘new’ paragraphs of Aa Fd have been inspired by the ‘new’
Roman law and those explicit references do not appear in Sg either
29
directly or indirectly.
He further says that Sg displays an embryonic use of ‘new’
Roman law (i.e., Justinianic law) and that the use of such law
gradually becomes more explicit in later redactions of the
Decretum:
The text of Sg demonstrates a timid knowledge (albeit explicit) of
these ‘new’ Roman sources, in a more embryonic state than in the
other manuscripts, and later their actual use becomes gradually more
explicit in subsequent redactions.30
However, just because Justinianic Roman law was new in the
early twelfth century, it does not follow that any work that quotes
more such law is newer than any work that quotes less. There are
dozens of abbreviations of the second recension of Gratian’s
Decretum, and every one of those that have been examined
contains less Roman law than the unabbreviated text of the
Decretum.
Another line of argument concerns texts which are unique
to the St. Gall manuscript, that is, they do not appear in any other
Gratian manuscript. There are twenty ‘dicta’ that are formulated
29
Carlos Larrainzar, ‘El borrador de la Concordia de Graciano’, 614:
‘los párrafos “nuevos” de Aa Fd se han inspirado en el “nuevo” Derecho
romano y esas explícitas referencias no aparecen en Sg ni directa ni
indirectamente’.
30
Carlos Larrainzar, ‘El borrador de la Concordia de Graciano’, 619:
‘la literalidad de Sg muestra un tímido conociemento (aunque expreso) de esas
fuentes romanas “nuevas”, en un estado más embroinario que en los otros
códices, y luego su efectivo uso se va haciendo gradualmente más explícito en
las posteriores redacciones’.
RECENT WORK ON GRATIAN’S DECRETUM
15
differently than in the first and the second recensions in the St.
Gall text. Larrainzar states that ‘this “presence” does not find any
other reasonable explanation … other than the fact that Sg is a
“recension anterior” to all other known recensions’.31 This is all
the explanation he provides. He is content with simply stating his
thesis without any elaboration.
Instead, he provides many examples of unique texts. One
example is C.1 q.7 d.p.c.4. In the St. Gall manuscript c.4 is
missing. Instead, the following ‘dictum’ begins with a brief
summary of this long text. The formulation of this summary is
similar to the formulation of the rubric of c.4 in both the first and
the second recension:
First and second recensions
St. Gall ms 673
C.1 q.7 c.4
C.1 q.7 d.p.c.4
(Aa Bc Fd P Friedberg, col. 428)
[‘rubric’] ‘Qui redeuntes ab hereticis
recipi* possunt uel qui non’.
[‘inscription’:] ‘Item de eadem
Sinodo’ [= VII]
‘Set ex septima synodo habemus
quod quidam redeuntes ab
hereticis reparari possunt quidam
non’.
*recipi P Fdpc, reparari Bc Aa,
separari Fdac
The boldfaced words are the same. It is obvious that one
formulation derives from the other, but which is the original?
Larrainzar states that the rubric of canon 4 in the first recension
31
Carlos Larrainzar, ‘El borrador de la Concordia de Graciano’, 620:
‘esa “presencia ” no encuentra otra explicación razonable – después de cuanto
ya sabemos sobre el códice – más que en el hecho de que Sg sea una
“redacción anterior” a todas las otras conocidas’.
16
BULLETIN OF MEDIEVAL CANON LAW
‘proceeded’ from the formulation of the ‘dictum’ in the St. Gall
text, but he does not elaborate why this should be so. 32 A simple
comparison of the two texts provides no basis for concluding that
one derives from the other. This is inconclusive evidence,
although it is presented as evidence which ‘confirms’ that the St.
Gall text is an earlier version of the Decretum.
This and other similar arguments do not prove anything.
Most abbreviations of Gratian’s Decretum contain unique texts,
which bear witness to the needs and aims of the abbreviator. In
his 1998 dissertation about three abbreviations of the Decretum,
Alfred Beyer devotes much space to discussing unique texts in
the three abbreviations that he examined.33 Each abbreviator
added texts that suited his purposes. The Bamberg abbreviation,
for example, contains added excerpts from the Summa of
Roland, clearly because its author was a teacher who wanted to
present the latest findings of the Bologna school in his
teaching.34
Larrainzar’s article about the St. Gall manuscript extends
over more than seventy pages and contains scores of textual
32
Carlos Larrainzar, ‘El borrador de la Concordia de Graciano’ 624:
‘En este texto se puede observar comó el “sumario” de C.1 q. 7 c.4 procede de
la antigua redacción del “dictum”, pues se toma de esas primeras líneas
(“quod quidam redeuntes ab hereticis reparari possunt quidam non”) que
resumían la “auctoritas” cuando todavía no se había copiado íntegra…’ [In
this text one may observe how the ‘summary’ of C.1, q. 7, c.4 [in later
recensions] proceeds from the old recension [=Sg] of the ‘dictum’, for it
makes use of these first lines (‘quod quidam redeuntes ab hereticis reparari
possunt quidam non’) which summarizes the ‘auctoritas’ which, however, has
not been copied entirely …]
33
Beyer, Lokale Abbreviationen e.g. 169 (‘Textveränderungen in der
Handschrift’) 172 (‘Zusätze in der Handschrift’) 329, 336, 431, 432 (with
similar rubrics).
34
Beyer, Lokale Abbreviationen 180-181. Bamberg, Staatsbibliothek
Can. 35 contains, fos. 9 v. - 10 r. an ‘arbor consanguinitatis’ with a description
which echoes the Summae of Paucapalea and Rolandus, e.g.: ‘Gradus autem
est aliqua persona in aliqua linea alicui copulata’. (Bamberg); ‘Gradus est
persona per aliquam lineam alicui coniuncta’ (Rolandus).
RECENT WORK ON GRATIAN’S DECRETUM
17
observations. I have carefully examined all of his arguments and
I have not found any convincing evidence for his thesis. A series
of disjointed examples do not make up a cogent thesis. There is
no real evidence for the view that the St. Gall manuscript
contains a recension of Gratian’s Decretum earlier than the first
recension. A careful study of the manuscript makes it clear, I
think, that it is an abbreviation.
For starters, the reading of many canons in the St. Gall
manuscript is further removed from that of Gratian’s source than
the readings of the first recension. Especially suitable for this
kind of study is C.1 q.1, since it is well established that Gratian
copied most of this question, including phrases in the dicta, from
the De misericordia et iustitia of Alger of Liège. The sequence
C.1 q.1 c.19 – d.p.c.22 provides an instructive example:35
Gratian, Decretum
(first recension)
St. Gall,
Stiftsbibliothek 673, p.
30
Alger of Liège, De
misericordia et iustitia
C.1 q.1 c.19
C.1 q.1 c.19
3.30
Unde beatus Ambrosius
in primo libro de
penitentia ad
Novatianum scribit
dicensa
Unde b. Ambrosius
libro primo de
penitentia dixit
… testatur Ambrosius in
primo libro de
penitentia ad
Novatianum
Petrus, cum Symon
magice artis
consuetudine depravatus
putasset, quod graciam
Christi per
impositionem manus et
Petrus, cum Symon
magice artis
consuetudine
depravatus putasset,
quod gratiam Christi
per inpositionem manus
Symoniaci fidei
integritatem non habent
Petrus, cum Simon
magice artis
consuetudine
depravatus putasset,
quod graciam Christi
per inpositionem
35
In the column for the first recension of Gratian’s Decretum, I have
underlined the rubrics. In all columns, dicta and inscriptions are set in italics.
The words in bold face are highlighted by me for emphasis.
18
BULLETIN OF MEDIEVAL CANON LAW
manusb et infusionem
spiritusc pecunia
compararet, ait: ‘Non
est tibi sors neque pars
in hac fide, quia cor
tuum non est rectum
aput deum.’ Vides quod
hunc magica vanitate
blasphemantem in
spiritu sancto apostolica
auctoritate condempnat
et eo magis quod puram
conscientiam fidei non
habebat.
in effusionem spiritus
pecunia compararet, ait:
‘Non est tibi sors neque
pars in hac fide, quia
cor tuum non est rectum
apud deum’.
et infusionem spiritus
compararet pecunia, ait:
‘Non est tibi sors neque
pars in hac fide, quia
cor tuum non est rectum
apud deum.’ Vides,
quod hunc magica
vanitate blasphemantem
in spiritu sancto
apostolica auctoritate
condemnet et eo magis
quia puram
conscientiam fidei non
habebat.
C.1 q.1 c.20
C.1 q.1 c.20
Alger 3.30
Item Gregorius in
registro
Item Gregorius in
registro
Unde Gregorius in
registro capitulo IIII:
Cum omnis avaritia
ydolorum servitus est
quisquis hanc et
maxime in dandis
honoribus ecclesiasticisd
non precavet,
infidelitatis perditioni
subicitur, etiam
si fidem tenere, quam
negligit, videatur.
Cum omnis avaritia
idolorum sit servitus,
quisquis hanc et
maxime in dandis
ecclesiasticis honoribus
vigilanter non precavet,
infidelitatis perditioni
subicitur, etiam
si tenere fidem, quam
negligit, videatur.36
C.1 q.1 d.p.c.22
C.1 q.1 d.p.c.22
Alger 3.40
Ex hac auctoritate
Ambrosii et Gregorii
Ex hac auctoritate
Gregorii et Ambrosii
Symoniacus infidelis
esse probatur
Cum omnis avaritia
idolorum sit servitus,
quisquis hanc et
maxime in dandis
ecclesiasticis honoribus
vigilanter non
precavet, infidelitatis
perdicioni subicitur,
etiam si tenere fidem,
quam negligit, videatur
.
36
Robert Kretzschmar, Alger von Lüttichs Traktat ‘De misericordia
et iustitia’: Ein kanonistischer Konkordanzversuch aus der Zeit des Investiturstreits (Quellen und Forschungen zum Recht im Mittelalter 2; Sigmaringen 1985) 336.
RECENT WORK ON GRATIAN’S DECRETUM
patet, quod simoniaci
sicut et alii heretici fide
exorbitant, et ideo
consequenter de illis
intelligitur,e quod etiam
de aliis decernitur.
Item opponitur.
Prophetia donum
spiritus sancti est, hec
autem in veteri
testamento a sanctis
prophetis vendi
consueverat. Unde Saul
ad Samuelem pro
vaticinio expetendo
nonf nisi cum munere
ire presumpsit.37
liquet, quod sicut et alii
heretici symoniaci ag
fide oberrant, unde et de
illis quam de aliis
consequenter censetur.
Rursus obicitur
prophetia spiritus sancti
donum est, at hec a
sanctis prophetis vendi
consuevit.
Unde et Saul ad
Samuelem pro vaticinio
expetendo sine munere
non ivit.
19
Sed videntur symoniaci
saltem aliquantulum
accipiendi auctoritatem
habere, quasi in veteri
testamento etiam a
sanctis viris hoc
usurpatum fuerit, pro
eo, quod Saul ad
Samuhelem pro
vaticinio expetendo non
nisi cum munere ire
presumpserit.38
a
scribit dicens Bc P: scribens dixit Aa Fd
manus Bc Fd P: manuum Aa
c
spiritus Bc Fd P: spiritus sancti Aa
d
vigilanter add. Sgpost corr.
e
intelligitur Aa Bc P: intelligi Fd
f
non add. Fdpost corr., post munere locat P
g
a add Sgpost corr.
b
For example, Gratian’s text of c.19 in the first recension
is practically identical with Alger’s text. In contrast, the St. Gall
text leaves out the second half of the canon. Canon 20 is also
identical in Alger and in the first recension of the Decretum. In
the St. Gall manuscript, the word ‘vigilanter’ is missing.
In the first recension and in the St. Gall text, d.p.c.22
follows directly upon c.20. This is one of the ‘dicta’ of C.1, in
which Gratian has copied material from Alger’s ‘dicta’. The text
in question is identical in the first recension and in Alger, except
that Gratian has changed one word from the subjunctive to the
37
Edited on the basis of Aa 23, fo. 94 v., Bc, fo. 100, Fd fo. 19 v., P,
38
Kretzschmar, Alger von Lüttichs Traktat 344.
fo. 85.
20
BULLETIN OF MEDIEVAL CANON LAW
indicative. In contrast, the St. Gall manuscript contains a
shortened version of the sentence. St. Gall replaces ‘nisi cum’
with ‘sine’. And St. Gall simplifies the construction ‘ire
presumpsit’ to the simpler ‘ivit’.
If the thesis that the St. Gall text preceded the first
recension is correct, this means that Gratian first excerpted
Alger’s work, abbreviating c.19, leaving out a word in c.20, and
simplifying the syntax of d.p.c.22. This would have produced the
St. Gall text. He would then, at a later point, compared his text to
that of his source, Alger. Working carefully, he noticed not only
the missing sentence in c.19, but also the missing word in c.20.
He also decided to change the text of the ‘dictum’ back to what
Alger had written, even though there is no significant difference
in meaning, and the text is a ‘dictum’, not an authority for which
every letter counts. It is, perhaps, not impossible that what I
describe is what actually happened, but it is surely very unlikely.
Yet, if the St. Gall text preceded the first recension this must
have been what happened.
Finally, I want to draw attention to one of several details
in the St. Gall manuscript that I think prove that its text is an
abbreviation. In the first and second recensions of Gratian’s
Decretum, the text of the C.1 q.6 one begins:
Quid vero de his fieri debeat, qui ignoranter a symoniacis ordinati
sunt (quod sexto loco quesitum est), supra in capitulo videlicet
Urbani, quod sic incipit: ‘Si qui a symoniacis non symoniace ordinati
sunt’ requiratur. [What is to be done about those, who unknowingly
were ordained by a simoniac (which was asked in the sixth place), is
found above, in the capitulum of Urban with the incipit ‘Si qui a
symoniacis non symoniace ordinati sunt’.]
This is a reference back to C.1 q.1 c.108, in which Pope Urban II
states that persons unknowingly ordained by simoniacs may
remain in their orders.
RECENT WORK ON GRATIAN’S DECRETUM
21
The St. Gall text does not include C.1 q.1 c.108 in its
usual place.39 Its text of the opening dictum in question six is
different from the usual text.
‘Quid autem de his fieri debeat qui ignoranter a symoniacis ordinati
sunt (quod quidem sexto loco quesitum est), supra in capitulo Urbani
dictum est quod, quia forte ibi quantum ad negotium pertinebat
integre poni non fuit necessarium, in presenti ad evidentiam in
medium adducamus’.
[What is to be done about those, who unknowingly were ordained by
a simoniac (which was asked in the sixth place), is said above, in the
‘capitulum’ of Urban, which was not necessary to put there in its
entirety in that context, but which we now bring forth as evidence.]
After this ‘dictum’ follows the text of Pope Urban’s
canon, which in all other Gratian manuscripts appears as C.1 q.1
c.108. In other words, the author of the St. Gall text first refers
his readers to a text supposedly found ‘above’ in question one.
Then he shifts gears and apologizes for not including the text
there. ‘For it did not fit the context’, he says. Instead he
introduces the text ‘now’ in q.6.
Is this really Gratian working on his first draft, as
Larrainzar argues? No, this sentence is clear evidence that the
Sankt Gall text is an abbreviation of the Decretum. It is the only
known abbreviation of the first recension, and remains therefore
a manuscript of great interest. We should be grateful to Carlos
Larrainzar for reintroducing this manuscript into the discussion,
for it is a valuable if indirect witness to the text of the first
recension.40 But it cannot be Gratian’s first draft.
39
Larrainzar, ‘El borrador de la Concordia de Graciano’ 654.
In at least one instance, Sg preserves a phrase (in C.15, q. 3,
d.p.c.4) which, I believe, belongs to the text of the first recension but which
does not appear in any other manuscript (to my knowledge): ‘Filii namque
duorum fratrum earum permissione iunguntur’ (after the sentence ‘Quecumque enim – inperatorum indulgetur’, cf. Winroth, Making of Gratian’s
Decretum, 152, n. 21 and the gloss in Fd, fo. 52 r.: ‘//lege[?] permittitur
coniunctio filiis duorum fratrum, canones vero vetant’).
40
22
BULLETIN OF MEDIEVAL CANON LAW
The St. Gall abbreviation is accompanied by glosses,
which means that it must have been used in teaching, as Ken
Pennington has pointed out.41 Several abbreviations of the
second recension also contain glosses and other details that show
that they were used in teaching. Alfred Beyer edited and
discussed the Bamberg abbreviation, which contains several
added texts that are closely related to the Summa of Roland.
Beyer concluded that this as well as other features of the text in
this abbreviation strongly suggest that it was used in teaching.
Since the letter of appeal in C.2 q.6 d.p.c.34 mentions Cologne
instead of the usual Bologna, Weigand concluded that this
abbreviation was used in the law school at Cologne, which
briefly flourished during the second half of the twelfth century.42
Similarly, the abbreviation Quoniam egestas was
probably used in teaching in Southern France, as Weigand
showed in 1991.43 It is particularly interesting that three of its
manuscripts contain glosses which refer to the Exceptiones Petri.
One manuscript even contains this work alongside the Quoniam
egestas. The Exceptiones is a short summary of Justinianic
Roman law that was used in the teaching of Roman law in
Southern France in the twelfth century. These texts and
manuscripts allow us a glimpse of the teaching of law outside
Bologna in the twelfth century, and they deserve to be studied
more than they have been. I suggest that the St. Gall abbreviation
is another example of this kind of text.
Even this brief survey demonstrates, I think, the healthy
state of research on Gratian’s Decretum, although I must pass
over other important contributions in silence. I would like to end
41
Pennington, ‘Gratian, Causa 19, and the birth of canonical
jurisprudence’ 226, n. 28.
42
Rudolf Weigand, ‘Die Dekretabbreviatio Quoniam egestas und
ihre Glossen’, Fides et ius: Festschrift für Georg May zum 65. Geburtstag
(Regensburg 1991) 249-265.
43
Weigand, ‘Dekretabbreviatio Quoniam egestas’.
RECENT WORK ON GRATIAN’S DECRETUM
23
by mentioning three fields in which more research would be
welcome.
First, Gratian’s sources. Through especially Peter Landau’s research, we can be much more certain about what books
Gratian read. I feel that we have reached a point when so much
of the groundwork has been done that we are able to ask even
more interesting questions about Gratian’s use of sources. When
and how did Gratian change the text of his sources? Did he use
sources differently in different ‘causae’? When did he choose to
paraphrase and summarize canons instead of quoting them
verbatim? Will we need to refine the methods used by Landau
and others (including me) for identifying Gratian’s sources in the
difficult cases? What sources and concerns inspired him when he
composed his ‘causae’ and questions? John Dillon has shared
some very interesting observations about Gratian’s use of a
single canon in Anselm of Lucca’s collection for drafting the
case statement of ‘causa’ 3 and his use of neighboring canons to
work out answers to the questions he composed on the basis of
one of them.44
My second point is that research is needed on the creation
of the second recension. Not much has been done in this field
beyond the mere beginnings that Weigand and I have sketched.45
We need to think about what flaws in the first recension the
author of the second addressed when he added more canons.
How did he go about his work? Which were his sources? And
who was he: an older and wiser Gratian or a different person? I
believe the weight of the evidence that has been presented so far
favors the latter conclusion, but we lack conclusive evidence.
44
Dillon, ‘Case Statements’.
Rudolf Weigand, ‘Causa 25 des Dekrets und die Arbeitsweise
Gratians’, Richard H. Helmholz, Paul Mikat, Jörg Müller und Michael Stolleis, eds., Grundlagen des Rechts: Festschrift für Peter Landau zum 65.
Geburtstag (Paderborn 2000) 277-290, Winroth, Making of Gratian’s
Decretum 130-136.
45
24
BULLETIN OF MEDIEVAL CANON LAW
The theme of this Congress is Editions, and my last point
is to express a pious wish that we will before too long see new
editions of the Decretum. I say ‘editions’ in the plural, for we
sorely need several.
First of all, we need an edition of the first recension. With
five manuscripts, this should not be an enormously difficult
undertaking, except for the fact that three of the manuscripts are
incomplete, one is an abbreviation, and the fifth is interpolated.46
Sometimes the correct reading will be found only in secondrecension manuscripts. The Paris and Barcelona manuscripts
clearly contain the most reliable texts. The future editor would
probably be wise to first publish an edition of the beginning of
the Decretum, e.g. through C.12, where five manuscripts may be
used. The lessons learned from this work will be useful for
working with the rest of the text, when only the very imperfect
witnesses from Admont, Florence, and St. Gall are available.
Second, we need a new edition of the second recension,
to replace Emil Friedberg’s 1879 work. This important task
remains as difficult and elusive as ever, despite all the progress
since Kuttner discussed it twenty years ago. This year (2004),
Regula Gujer has thrown new light on the problems involved
through the publication of her dissertation, which is delightfully
named Concordia discordantium codicum manuscriptorum. Her
book is a detailed and methodologically sophisticated analysis of
eighteen selected Decretum manuscripts, one of which contains
the first recension. Her results are important, but difficult to
translate into a practical program for an editorial project, except
that they emphasize, again, that there are no easy solutions to the
problems involved.
Third, we need editions of more abbreviations of the
Decretum, beyond the three relatively brief ones that Beyer
published. I think that their role in the dissemination and
46
There is a sixth witness in the form of a one-leaf fragment (Pfr)
containing C.11, q. 3, d.p.c.43 – c.69, which was discovered by Carlos
Larrainzar in 1998.
RECENT WORK ON GRATIAN’S DECRETUM
25
reception of canon law throughout Europe has not been
sufficiently recognized. I was happy to note that Carlos Larrainzar intends to edit the St. Gall abbreviation. I hope we will soon
see editions of, for example, Omnibene’s abbreviation and the
Quoniam egestas.
The final edition on my wish-list is, in contrast, something that would not be difficult to accomplish, if only one could
find an interested publisher. We need easy access to the
Decretum text that was actually taught and read at the medieval
universities and used in medieval ecclesiastical courts, including
the paleae and the ordinary gloss. A photographic reprint of a
good fifteenth-century edition of the Decretum would provide
such access. It is important that it is an edition printed before
1500, when Jean Chappuis published his revised edition of the
Decretum in which he made additions to the gloss. No text of the
gloss has been printed since the seventeenth century, so it is
about time!
Yale University,
New Haven, Connecticut
RECENT WORK ON THE MAKING OF GRATIAN'S DECRETUM
A Selected bibliography
Manuscripts of the first recension
Aa
Admont, Stiftsbibliothek 23 et 43. Austria, s. XII3/4
Bc
Barcelona, Arxiu de la Corona d’Aragó, Santa Maria de Ripoll 78.
Italy, s. XII
Fd
Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, Conventi Soppressi A
1.402. Southern Italy, s. XII3/4
P
Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, nouv. acq. lat. 1761. France
s. XII
Pfr
Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, lat. 3884 I-II, fo. 1
(fragmentum). France, s. XII
Sg
Sankt Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek 673
26
BULLETIN OF MEDIEVAL CANON LAW
Beyer, Alfred, Lokale Abbreviationen des ‘Decretum Gratiani’: Analyse und
Vergleich der Dekretabbreviationen ‘Omnes leges aut divine’
(Bamberg), ‘Humanum genus duobus regitur’ (Pommersfelden) und
‘De his qui intra claustra monasterii consistunt’ (Lichtenthal, BadenBaden) (Bamberger theologische Studien 6; Frankfurt am Main
1998).
Brett, Martin, ‘Rough text of the second version of the Collectio Tripartita’,
computer files.
Brett, Martin, and Bruce C.Brasington, ‘Provisional Edition of Ivo of Chartres'
Panormia’, available at:
http://wtfaculty.wtamu.edu/~bbrasington/panormia.html.
De Leon, Enrique, ‘La biografia di Graziano’, ed. Enrique De Leon and
Nicolás Álvarez de las Asturias, La cultura giuridico-canonica
medioevale: Premesse per un dialogo ecumenico (Milan 2003) 89107.
Fowler-Magerl, Linda, Clavis canonum: Selected Canon Law Collections
Before 1140 (MGH, Hilfsmittel 21; Hannover 2005).
Grebner, Gundula, ‘Lay patronate in Bologna in the first half of the 12th
century: Regular canons, notaries, and the Decretum’ 107. In Europa
und seine Regionen: 2000 Jahre Rechtsgeschichte, ed. Andreas
Bauer and Karl H. L. Welker (Vienna 2007) 107-122.
Gujer, Regula, Concordia Discordantium Codicum Manuscriptorum?: zur
Textentwicklung von 18 Handschriften anhand der D.16 des
‘Decretum Gratiani’ (Forschungen zur kirchlichen Rechtsgeschichte
und zum Kirchenrecht 23; Cologne 2004).
Kretzschmar, Robert, Alger von Lüttichs Traktat ‘De misericordia et iustitia’:
ein kanonistischer Konkordanzversuch aus der Zeit des Investiturstreits (Quellen und Forschungen zum Recht im Mittelalter 2; Sigmaringen 1985).
Kuttner, Stephan, ‘Research on Gratian: Acta and agenda’, Proceedings
Cambridge 3-26 MIC Ser. C 8; Vatican City 1988. ; reprinted in
Kuttner, Studies in the History of Medieval Canon Law, no. V
(Collected Studies CS 325. Aldershot 1990).
Landau, Peter, ‘Neue Forschungen zu vorgratianischen Kanonessammlungen
und den Quellen des gratianischen Dekrets’, Ius commune 11 (1984)
1-29.
—, ‘Gratian und Dionysius Exiguus: Ein Beitrag zur kanonistischen
Interpolationenkritik’ 271-283. In De iure canonico Medii Aevi:
Festschrift für Rudolf Weigand (SG, 27; Rome 1996).
—, ‘Das Register Papst Gregors I. im Decretum Gratiani, 124-140. In Mittelalterliche Texte: Überlieferung – Befunde – Deutungen, ed. Rudolf
Schieffer (MGH: Schriften 42; Hannover 1996).
RECENT WORK ON GRATIAN’S DECRETUM
27
—, ‘Burchard de Worms et Gratien: Pour l'étude des sources directes du
Décret de Gratien’, RDC 48 (1998) 233-245.
—, ‘Patristische Texte in den beiden Rezensionen des Decretum Gratiani’,
BMCL 23 (1999) 77-84.
Larrainzar, Carlos, ‘El Decreto de Graciano del Codice Fd (= Firenze,
Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, Conventi Soppressi A.I.402): In
memoriam Rudolf Weigand’, Ius Ecclesiae 10 (1998) 421-489.
—, ‘El borrador de la Concordia de Graciano: Sankt Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek
MS 673 (=Sg)’, Ius Ecclesiae 11 (1999) 593-666.
—, ‘La formacion del Decreto de Graciano por etapas’, Zeitschrift der
Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte: Kanonistische Abteilung 87
(2001) 67-83.
—, ‘La ricerca attuale sul Decretum Gratiani’, ed. Enrique De Leon and
Nicolás Álvarez de las Asturias, La cultura giuridico-canonica
medioevale: Premesse per un dialogo ecumenico (Milan 2003) 109122.
Lenherr, Titus, Die Exkommunikations- und Depositionsgewalt der Häretiker
bei Gratian und den Dekretisten bis zur “Glossa Ordinaria” des
Johannes Teutonicus (Münchener theologische Studien, 3;
Kanonistische Abteilung 42; Munich 1987).
—, ‘Zur Ueberlieferung des Kapitels Duae sunt, inquit, leges (Decretum
Gratiani C.19 Q. 2 C.2)’, AKKR 168 (1999) 359-384.
—, ‘Die vier Fassungen von C.3 q.1 d.p.c.6 im Decretum Gratiani. Zugleich
ein Einblick in die neueste Diskussion um das Werden von Gratians
Dekret’, AKKR 169 (2000) 353-381.
—, ‘Die Freiheit zur vita communis der Jerusalemer Urgemeinde: Ein anderer
Blick auf Due sunt, inquit, leges (Dekret Gratians C.19 q.2 c.2)’, ed.
Karl-Theodor Geringer and Heribert Schmitz, Communio in Ecclesia
mysterio: Festschrift für Winfried Aymans zum 65. Geburtstag (St.
Ottilien 2001) 305-333.
—, ‘Die Glossa Ordinaria zur Bibel als Quelle von Gratians Dekret: Ein
(neuer) Anfang’, BMCL 24 (2000) 97-129.
—, ‘Ist die Handschrift 673 der St. Galler Stiftsbibliothek (Sg) der Entwurf zu
Gratians Dekret? Versuch einer Antwort aus Beobachtungen an D.31
und D.32’, available at http://home.vr-web.de/titus_lenherr/SgEntw.PDF.
Maas, Paule, The Liber sententiarum magistri A: Its Place amidst the Sentences Collections of the First Half of the 12th Century (Nijmegen
1995).
Nardi, Paolo, ‘Fonti canoniche in una sentenza senese del 1150’, ed. Peter
Linehan, Life, Law and Letters: Historical Studies in Honour of
Antonio García y García (SG 29; Rome 1998) 661-670.
28
BULLETIN OF MEDIEVAL CANON LAW
Noonan, John T., ‘Gratian slept here: The Changing Identity of the Father of
the Systematic Study of Canon Law’, Traditio 35 (1979) 145-172.
Paxton, Frederick C., ‘Le cause 13 de Gratien et la composition du Décret’,
RDC 51 (2001) 233-249; also available in English at:
http://camel2.conncoll.edu/academics/web_profiles/paxton.html.
Pennington, Kenneth, ‘Gratian, Causa 19, and the birth of canonical
jurisprudence’, ed. Enrique De Leon and Nicolás Álvarez de las
Asturias, La cultura giuridico-canonica medioevale: Premesse per
un dialogo ecumenico (Milan 2003) 209-232 and in an expanded
version in “Panta rei”: Studi dedicati a Manlio Bellomo, ed. Orazio
Condorelli (Roma 2004) 4.339-355.
—, ‘Gratian’ DMA: Supplement (New York 2004)
Sommar, Mary E., ‘Gratian’s Causa VII and the Multiple Recension
Theories’, BMCL 24 (1999) 78-96.
Southern, R. W., Scholastic Humanism and the Unification of Europe (Vol. 1;
Foundations. Oxford 1995).
Stickler, Alfons, ‘Iter Helveticum’, Traditio 14 (1958) 462-483.
Tarín, Luis Pablo, ‘An secularibus litteris oporteat eos esse eruditos? El texto
de D.37 en las etapas antiguas del Decreto de Graciano’, ed. Enrique
De Leon and Nicolás Álvarez de las Asturias, La cultura giuridicocanonica medioevale (Milan 2003) 469-511.
Viejo-Ximénez, José M., ‘Concordia y Decretum del maestro Graciano: In
memoriam Rudolf Weigand’, Ius canonicum 39 (1999) 333-357
—, ‘La recepción del derecho romano en el derecho canonico’, Ius
Ecclesiae14 (2002) 375-414.
—, ‘El derecho romano 'nuevo' en el Decreto de Graciano’, ZRG Kan. Abt. 88
(2002) 1-19.
Weigand, Rudolf, Die Glossen zum Dekret Gratians: Studien zu den frühen
Glossen und Glossenkompositionen (SG 25-26; Rome 1991).
—, ‘Die Dekretabbreviatio “Quoniam egestas” und ihre Glossen’, Fides et
ius: Festschrift für Georg May zum 65. Geburtstag (Regensburg
1991) 249-265.
—, ‘Zur künftigen Edition des Decretum Gratians’, ZRG Kan. Abt. (1997) 3251.
—, ‘Chancen und Probleme einer baldigen kritischen Edition der ersten
Redaktion des Dekrets Gratians’, BMCL 23 (1998) 53-75.
—, ‘Mittelalterliche Texte: Gregor I., Burchard und Gratian’, ZRG Kan. Abt.
84 (1998) 330-344.
—, ‘Versuch einer neuen, differenzierten Liste der Paleae und Dubletten im
Dekret Gratians’, ed. Peter Linehan, Life, Law and Letters: Historical
Studies in Honour of Antonio García y García (SG 29; Rome
1998) 883-899; reprinted in BMCL 23 (1999) 114-128.
RECENT WORK ON GRATIAN’S DECRETUM
29
—, ‘Causa 25 des Dekrets und die Arbeitsweise Gratians’, ed. Richard H.
Helmholz, Paul Mikat, Jörg Müller und Michael Stolleis, Grundlagen
des Rechts: Festschrift für Peter Landau zum 65. Geburtstag
(Paderborn 2000) 277-290.
Werckmeister, Jean, ‘Les études sur le Décret de Gratien: Essai de bilan et
perspectives’, RDC 48 (1998) 363-379.
Winroth, Anders, ‘Les deux Gratien et le droit romain’, RDC 48 (1998) 285299.
—, The Making of Gratian's Decretum (Cambridge 2000).
—, ‘Le manuscrit florentin du Décret de Gratien: Une critique des travaux de
Carlos Larrainzar sur Gratien, I’, RDC 51 (2001) 211-231.
—, ‘The Teaching of Law in the Twelfth Century’, ed. Helle Vogt and Mia
Münster-Swendsen, Law and Learning in the Middle Ages (Copenhagen, 2006), 41-62.
—, ‘Neither free nor slave: Theology and Law in Gratian’s Thoughts on the
Definition of Marriage and Unfree Persons', ed. Mary E. Sommar and
Wolfgang P. Müller, Medieval Foundations of the Western Legal
Tradition: A Tribute to Kenneth Pennington (Washington, D.C.,
2006) 97-109.