Recent Work on the Making of Gratian’s Decretum

Anders Winroth

Yale University

Barcelona, Arxiu de la Corona d’Aragó, Santa Maria de Ripoll 78

Carlos Larrainzar, “La formación del Decreto de Graciano por etapas,” ZRG: KA 118 (2001), 80

Exserpta Sg = Saint Gallen MS 673Concordia Fd = Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale,

Conv. Soppr. A. 1.402 ante correctionemDecretvm Fd = Florence A. 1.402 post correctionem

Carlos Larrainzar, “El Decreto de Graciano del códice Fd,” 424-425

The codex Fd contains not only 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.

Carlos Larrainzar, “La ricerca attuale sul Decretum Gratiani,” in La cultura giuridico-canonico medioevale

(2003), 79

First: The Florentine codex Fd is the direct and immediate source of the manuscript tradition of the vulgate Decretum.

Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, Conv. Soppr. A. 1.402, fo. 16 r.

Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, Conv. Soppr. A. 1.402, fo. 104 v.

Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, Conv. Soppr. A. 1.402, fo. 167 v.

Council of Pope Eugenius III in Reims 1148, canons 1-2, written by hand C, according to Larrainzar, “El Decreto de Graciano del códice

Fd,” 479.

Carlos Larrainzar, “El Decreto de Graciano del códice Fd,” 445

The sequence A Gα, Gτ1 B before 1148 is unquestionable …

Carlos Larrainzar, “El borrador de la Concordia de Graciano,” 594

… [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).

Carlos Larrainzar, “El Decreto de Graciano del códice Fd,” 437-438

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).

Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, Conv. Soppr. A. 1.402, fo. 5r.

Third Council of Braga (675), canon 6 (= D. 45, c. 8), written by hand G, according to Larrainzar, “El Decreto

de Graciano del códice Fd,” 483.

Saint Gall, Stiftsbibliothek MS 673, fo. 145

First and second recension

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

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

St. Gall manuscript

C. 15, q. 4, d.p.c. 4

Sed totiens legibus in ecclesiasticis ecclesiasticis [sic!] negotiis utendum est quotiens sacris canonibus obuiare non inuenientur.

• Reference to “huius initium operis” (= D. 10) is missing• Verbal echoes of D. 10, c. 1 are present• DD. 1-26 are missing from the St. Gall manuscript.

Carlos Larrainzar, “El borrador de la Concordia de Graciano,” 614:

A simple comparison of the two dicta* demonstrates, unequivocally, the precedence of the redaction of Sg in comparison to the text of the other manuscripts …*[C. 15, q. 3, d.p.c. 4 in Sg and Aa Fd].

Carlos Larrainzar, “El borrador de la Concordia de Graciano,” 614

…and, as is logical, in Sg there is no reference to D. 10, c. 1 of the prima pars, which later* is cited, although hidden behind the phrase circa huius operis initium premissum est.* [In Aa Fd, and in the second recension.]

St Gall manuscript

C. 15, q. 4, d.p.c. 4

Sed totiens legibus in ecclesiasticis ecclesiasticis [sic!] negotiis utendum est quotiens sacris canonibus obuiare non inuenientur.

• Reference to “huius initium operis” (= D. 10) is missing• Verbal echoes of D. 10, c. 1 are present (in bold face)• DD. 1-26 are missing from the St. Gall manuscript.

Pommersfelden Abbreviation

C. 15, q. 4, d.p.c. 4

Tociens legibus imperatorum in ecclesiasticis necesariis utendum est, quociens sacris canonibus obuiare non inuenientur.

Ed. Alfred Beyer, Lokale Abbreviationen des Decretum Gratiani (1998), p. 293, on the basis of Bibliothek des Schlosses Weißenstein zu Pommersfelden, HS 258

• Reference to “huius initium operis” (= D. 10) is missing• Verbal echoes of D. 10, c. 1 are present (in bold face)• The relevant passages in D. 10 are missing from the

Pommersfelden manuscript.• The thirteenth-century Pommersfelden manuscript contains an

abbreviation composed in Southwestern France.

Carlos Larrainzar, “El borrador de la Concordia de Graciano,” 614:

… the “new” paragraphs of Aa Fd have been inspired by the “new” Roman law and those explicit references do not appear in Sg neither directly nor indirectly …

Carlos Larrainzar, “El borrador de la Concordia de Graciano,” 619

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 the later redactions.

Carlos Larrainzar, “El borrador de la Concordia de Graciano,” 620

…this “presence” does not find any reasonable explanation – given what we already know about the manuscript – other than the fact that Sg is a recension anterior to all other known ones.

First and secondrecensions (Aa Bc Fd P Friedberg, col. 428)

C. 1, q. 7, c. 4

[rubric:] Qui redeuntes ab hereticis recipi* possunt uel qui non.

[inscription:] Item de eadem Sinodo [= VII]

*recipi P Fdpc, reparari Bc Aa, separari Fdac

St. Gall ms 673C. 1, q. 7, d.p.c. 4

Set ex septima synodo habemus quod quidam redeuntes ab hereticis reparari possunt quidam non.

Carlos Larrainzar, “El borrador de la Concordia de Graciano,” 624:

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 …

First and secondrecensions (Aa Bc Fd P Friedberg, col. 428)

C. 1, q. 7, c. 4

[rubric:] Qui redeuntes ab hereticis recipi* possunt uel qui non.

[inscription:] Item de eadem Sinodo [= VII]

*recipi P Fdpc, reparari Bc Aa, separari Fdac

St. Gall ms 673C. 1, q. 7, d.p.c. 4

Set ex septima synodo habemus quod quidam redeuntes ab hereticis reparari possunt quidam non.

C. 1, q. 1, c. 19

Petrus, cum Simon magice artis consuetudine depravatus putasset, quod graciam Christi per inpositionem manus et infusionem spiritus 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

All text in Alger and the first recension. The words in bold-face are missing in the St. Gall text

C. 1, q. 1, c. 20

Item Gregorius in registroCum omnis avaritia idolorum sit servitus , quisquis hanc et maxime in dandis ecclesiasticis honoribus vigilenter non precavet, infidelitatis perdicioni subicitur, etiam si tenere fidem, quam negligit, videatur.

All text in Alger and the first recension. The words in bold-face are missing in the St. Gall text

C. 1, q. 1, d.p.c. 22

Alger of Liège, De misericordia et iustitia III 40…quod Saul ad Samuelem pro vaticinio expetendo

non nisi cum munere ire presumpserit.

St. Gall MS 673Unde et Saul ad Samuelem pro vaticinio

expetendo sine munere non ivit.

First recensionUnde Saul ad Samuelem pro vaticinio expetendo

nisi cum munere ire non presumpsit.

C. 1, q. 6, d.a.c. 1 in first and second recension

Quid vero de his fieri debeat, qui ignoranter a symonicis ordinati sunt (quod sexto loco quesitum est), supra in capitulo videlicet Urbani, quod sic incipit: “Si qui a symoniacis non symoniace ordinati sunt” requiratur [= C. 1, q. 1, c. 108].

Bc P Friedberg col. 424

C. 1, q. 6, d.a.c. 1 in St. Gall 673

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.

[The text of C. 1, q. 1, c. 108 follows.]

Words in bold face are unique to Sg

Saint Gall, Stiftsbibliothek MS 673, fo. 144