instead, e.g. Quum olim, de Consuetudine, X.; or cap. 6, de consuet. (I. iv.); that is to say, book I., title iv., de consuetudine, chapter 6, beginning with the words Quum olim.
Though Gregory IX. wished to supersede the compilationes, he
had no idea of superseding the Decretum of Gratian, still less of
codifying the whole of the canon law. Though his
collection is still in theory the chief monument of
ecclesiastical law, it only marked a certain stage and
Their relation to
the general law.
was before long to receive further additions. The
reason for this is that in most cases the decretals did not formulate
any law, but were merely solutions of particular cases,
given as models; to arrive at the abstract law it was necessary
to examine the solution in each case with regard to the circumstances
and thus formulate a rule; this was the work of the
canonists. The “decretalists” commented on the new collection,
as the “decretists” had done for that of Gratian; but the
canonists were not legislators: even the summaries which they
placed at the head of the chapters could not be adduced as
legislative texts. The abstract law was to be found rather in the
Summae of the canonists than in the decretals. Two important
results, however, were achieved: on the one hand, supplementary
collections on private authority ceased to be made, for
this Gregory IX. had forbidden; on the other hand, the collections
were no longer indefinitely swelled by the addition of new
decisions in particular cases, those already existing being enough
to form a basis for the codification of the abstract law; and for
this reason subsequent collections contain as a rule only the
“constitutions” of popes or councils, i.e. rules laid down as of
general application. Hence arose a separation, which became
more and more marked, between legislation and jurisprudence.
This change was not produced suddenly, the old method being at
first adhered to. In 1245 Innocent IV. sent to the universities a
collection of 45 decretals, with the order that they should
be inserted under their proper titles in the collection of
Gregory IX. In 1253 he sent a further list of the first words
(principia) of the complementary constitutions and decretals;
but the result was practically nil and the popes gave up
this system of successive additions. It was, however, found
expedient to publish a new official collection. At the instance of
the university of Bologna, Boniface VIII., himself an eminent
canonist, had this prepared by a committee of canonists and
published it in 1298. As it came as an addition to the five
The “Liber Sextus.”
books of Gregory IX., it was called the sixth book, the Liber Sextus. It includes the constitutions subsequent to
1234, and notably the decrees of the two ecumenical
councils of Lyons, and is arranged in books and titles,
as above described; the last title, de regulis juris, contains
no less than eighty-eight legal axioms, mostly borrowed
from Roman law. The Liber Sextus is cited like the decretals of
Gregory IX., only with the addition of: in sexto (in VIo.).
The same observations apply to the next collection, the Clementinae. It was prepared under the care of Clement V., and even promulgated by him in consistory in March 1314; but in consequence of the death of the pope, which took place almost immediately after, the publication The “Clementinae.” and despatch of the collection to the universities was postponed till 1317, under John XXII. It includes the constitutions of Clement V., and above all, the decrees of the council of Vienne of 1311, and is divided, like preceding collections, into books and titles; it is cited in the same way, with the additional indication Clem-(entina).
At this point the official collections stop. The two last,
which have found a place in the editions of the Corpus, are
collections of private authority, but in which all the
documents are authentic. Evidently the strict prohibition
of the publishing of collections not approved
“Extravagantes”
of John XXII.
by the Holy See had been forgotten. The Extravagantes
(i.e. extra collectiones publicas) of John XXII. number 20,
and are classified under fourteen titles. The Extravagantes communes (i.e. coming from several popes)
number 73, from Boniface VIII. to Sixtus IV. (1484),
and are classified in books and titles. These two collections
were included in the edition of Jean Chappuis in 1500; they
passed into the later editions, and are considered as forming part
And “communes.”
of the Corpus juris canonici. As such, and without receiving any
complementary authority, they have been corrected and re-edited,
like the others, by the Correctores romani. They are cited,
like the decretals, with a further indication of the collection to
which they belong: Extrav. Jo. XXII., or inter-comm-(unes).
Thus was closed, as the canonists say, the Corpus juris canonici; but this expression, which is familiar to us nowadays, is only a bibliographical term. Though we find in the 15th century, for example, at the council of Basel the expression corpus juris, obviously suggested by the The “Corpus juris canonici.” Corpus juris civilis, not even the official edition of Gregory XIII. has as its title the words Corpus juris canonici. and we do not meet with this title till the Lyons edition of 1671.
The history of the canonical collections forming the Corpus juris would not be complete without an account of the labours
of which they were the object. We know that the
universities of the middle ages contained a Faculty
of Decrees, with or without a Faculty of Laws, i.e.
The study of
canon law.
civil law. The former made doctores decretorum, the
latter doctores legum. The teaching of the magistri consisted in
oral lessons (lecturae) directly based on the text. The short
remarks explanatory of words in the text, originally written
in the margin, became the gloss which, formed thus
by successive additions, took a permanent form and
was reproduced in the manuscripts of the Corpus, and
later in the various editions, especially in the official Roman
The glosses.
edition of 1582; it thus acquired by usage a kind of semi-official
authority. The chief of the glossatores of the Decretum of
Gratian were Paucapalea, the first disciple of the master, Rufinus
(1160–1170), John of Faenza (about 1170), Joannes Teutonicus
(about 1210), whose glossary, revised and completed by Bartholomeus
Brixensis (of Brescia) became the glossa ordinaria decreti. For the decretals we may mention Vincent the Spaniard
and Bernard of Botone (Bernardus Parmensis, d. 1263), author of
the Glossa ordinaria. That on the Liber Sextus is due to the
famous Joannes Andreae (c. 1340); and the one which he began
for the Clementines was finished later by Cardinal Zabarella
(d. 1417). The commentaries not so entirely concerned with the
text were called Apparatus; and Summae was the name given to
The “Summae.”
general treatises. The first of these works are of capital
importance in the formation of a systematic canon
law. Such were the Summae of the first disciples of
Gratian: Paucapalea (1150),[1] Rolando Bandinelli[2]
(afterwards Alexander III., c. 1150), Rufinus[3] (c. 1165), Étienne
of Tournai[4] (Stephanus Tornacensis, c. 1168), John of Faenza
(c. 1170), Sicard, bishop of Cremona (c. 1180), and above all
Huguccio (c. 1180). For the Decretals we should mention:
Bernard of Pavia[5] (c. 1195), Sinibaldo Fieschi (Innocent IV.,
c. 1240), Henry of Susa (d. 1271), commonly called (cardinalis)
Hostiensis, whose Summa Hostiensis or Summa aurea is a work
of the very highest order; Wilhelmus Durantis or Durandus,
Joannes Andreae, Nicolas de Tudeschis (abbas siculus), &c.
The 15th century produced few original treatises; but after
the council of Trent the Corpus juris was again commented on
by distinguished canonists, e.g. the Jesuit Paul Laymann (1575–1635),
the Portuguese Agostinho Barbosa (1590–1649), Manuel
Gonzalez Tellez (d. 1649) and Prospero Fagnani (1598–1687),
who, although blind, was secretary to the Congregation of the
Council. But as time goes on, the works gradually lose the
character of commentaries on the text, and develop into expositions
of the law as a whole.
- ↑ Edited by Schulte, Die Summa des Paucapaiea (Giessen, 1890).
- ↑ Edited by Thaner, Die Summa Magistri Rolandi (Innsbruck, 1874); later by Gietl, Die Sentenzen Rolands (Freiburg im B., 1891).
- ↑ Edited by H. Singer, Die Summa Decretorum des Magister Rufinus
- ↑ Edited by Schulte, Die Summe des Stephanus Tornacensis (Giessen, 1891).
- ↑ He made a Summa of his own collection, ed. E. Laspeyres, Bernardi Papiensis Summa Decretalium (Mainz, 1860). The commentaries of Innocent IV. and Henry of Susa have been frequently published.
