1 Introduction
The first impulse to embark on this study many years ago was the âriddleâ of how one should explain the circumstance that in the Exserpta,1 at the beginning of Causa 23 when the case is formulated, the strange word latumie is used, where the more familiar word ergastulum is found in the Concordia2 and the Decretum.3 Could it be that the use of this word indicates the geographical location where the Exserpta originated or were used? To whom was this word, the meaning of which a contemporary reader had to look up in the Latin dictionary, so familiar that he could use it without hesitation? Where and when and by whom was this word also used? The difference between aliis in carceribus et latumiis reclusis in the Exserpta and aliis carcere et ergastulo reclusis in the rest of the tradition became the âpropellantâ for this study.
The linguistic differences between these three traditions have been noticed for a long time and have in some cases also been discussed.4 The differences have been used to support arguments for or against the classification of the Exserpta either as an abbreviation or as the earliest version of what the Decretum Gratiani would later become.5 However, the extent of these peculiarities only becomes apparent when we make them our central topic. There are surprisingly many of them, and this provokes questions.
This study intends first to track down and describe the special linguistic phenomena in the Exserpta and then to attempt to interpret them. The focus is not on trying to find an answer to the question of the position of the Exserpta in the editorial history and the transmission of Gratianâs work. The goal is to learn more about the Exserpta themselves, and especially about the milieu in which they were created. In order to grasp the linguistic peculiarities, a comparison with the versions of the corresponding texts in the Concordia and in the Decretum will of course be essential.
There is no section in the Exserpta in which the linguistic peculiarity of this version is not noticeable compared to the versions of the Concordia and of the Decretum. This applies first and foremost to the dicta, but beyond that, albeit to a much lesser extent, also to the Inscriptions, the Summaries, and the Authorities.6
2 A First Example: The Initium of Causa 23
The beginning of Causa 23 â the narration of the case and the formulation of the questions that are linked to it â is an example in which we already encounter almost all of the linguistic peculiarities of the Exserpta.7
The differences between the two versions are displayed and named in detail in the following table:
The text from the Exserpta has 143 words; the text from the Concordia has 168 words. There are more than 60 differences between the two versions, which can be summarised and categorised as follows:
a) transposition of words (cf. 2Ã no. 1, 1Ã nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 10, 11, 2Ã no. 13);
b) transposition of elements that consist of several words (cf. 1Ã nos. 1, 3, 2Ã no. 5, 1Ã nos. 7, 12, 2Ã no. 13);
c) synonyms (cf. 1Ã no. 3, 4Ã no. 4, 3Ã no. 5, 1Ã nos. 7, 12, 2Ã no. 13);
d) grammatical differences (cf. 1Ã nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 12, 2Ã no. 14, 4Ã no. 13);
e) differences in the extent of the text (omissions â additions) (cf. 1Ã nos. 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 14, 4Ã no. 6, 2Ã no. 7);
f) shortening of a word (1Ã no. 2).
In terms of content, however, there are only slight differences. We find one in section 6, where the Exserpta use multi twice, while the Concordia-Decretum have nonnulli and alii. We have another one in section 9, where the Exserpta pose a question concerning a permission, while the Concordia-Decretum have a question concerning a duty, since the Exserpta ask âwhether it is allowed to defend the companions from iniquity,â while the question in the Concordia- Decretum is âwhether we have to repel the iniquity from the companions.â Another difference regarding content appears in section 13, where we have the difference between the dative object ecclesiis in the Exserpta and the genitive attribute ecclesie in the Concordia-Decretum: âWhether the heretics have to be deprived of their goods and churchesâ versus âWhether the heretics have to be deprived of their goods and those of the church.â
3 A Second Example: the Principium of the 1. Questio of Causa 29
The linguistic differences in the Initium of C.23 are easily nameable. However, there are Dicta where it is much more difficult to name the differences on the grid of a common language substrate. Even if the same issue is discussed in the two versions of such Dicta and there is no doubt that the two versions are âcognateâ with one another, the linguistic differences are so great that one has to ask: Qualiter igitur hanc (â¦) dissonantiam concordari ualeat.8 The differences are no longer simply âcountable.â
Such uncountable differences can be found in the Dictum at the beginning of Quaestio 1 of Causa 29.
The two versions have two widely different introductions, a âpersonalâ one in the Exserpta: Similiter raciocinamur et de eo qui (â¦), and an âimpersonalâ one in the Concordia-Decretum: Item. These different introductions require a different continuation with respect to the grammar. In the Exserpta, a relative clause follows; in the Concordia-Decretum, two conditional clauses follow (cf. section 1). In the Exserpta, the âCatholicâ is the subject of the action; he admits that he had converted to a heretical sect. The sect is characterised in an apposition, a genitive attribute with a relative clause in which the âCatholicâ is the one acting: (the sect) of that person whom he had assumed was Ambrose or Augustine, while it was Arius or Sabellius. In the Concordia-Decretum, âa hereticâ is the subject of the action in the first conditional clause. He presents himself as Augustine or Ambrose or Jerome and calls for imitation, whereupon in the second conditional clause the âCatholicâ becomes the subject of the action and gives (âthe hereticâ) his assent.
In section 2 the Concordia expresses the solution to the problem that results from the example, while such an explicit solution to the problem cannot be found in the Exserpta. For the two versions, this once again means that they have to continue in quite different ways (see section 3aâb).
Section 3aâb deals with the application of the example of section 1 and section 2 to the subject of matrimonial law. Two sentences follow in the Exserpta, only one sentence in Concordia-Decretum. The first sentence in the Exserpta begins with a causal subordinate clause: quoniam ista personali errore ducta esse dicitur, which is followed by the main clause with the predicate non in hunc set in eum (â¦) consensit. The second sentence draws the conclusion: Quare nec illius esse coniunx perhibetur. The single sentence in the Concordia-Decretum begins with a causal subordinate clause: Quia hec persona (â¦) non in hunc, sed in eum (â¦) consensit, followed by the main clause with the predicate patet, after which the subject quod eius coniunx non fuerit follows.
There are also âcountableâ differences. In section 1: difference in the extent of the text / Arrius uel Sabellius <-> quis hereticorum / difference in the extent of the text / se transisse <-> preberet assensum. In section 3a: unde <-> quia / Ista (subject) <-> hec persona (subject) / adest personali <-> deest personali / dicitur ducta esse (predicate) <-> ducta (adjunct) / hic <-> iste. In section 3b: quare <-> patet / nec esse perhibetur <-> non fuerit / illius <-> eius.
4 Other Linguistic Features
In addition to the linguistic peculiarities already described, further features can be identified and characterised, three of which are dealt with here.9
(a) Personal formulations
The âpersonalâ introduction in the Dictum at the beginning of the first Questio of Causa 29: Similiter raciocinamur (as opposed to Item in the Concordia- Decretum) is an example of another peculiarity of the Exserpta. The âMagisterâ often uses verbs in the first person plural when he looks back on what has been done or what has happened or when he tries to foresee what is to come.
The examination of the Exserpta from beginning to end leads to a list of 62 instances of such âpersonalâ formulations.10 We learn from this compilation that such personal formulations occur in the Concordia-Decretum, too, and that there are also âimpersonalâ formulations in the Exserpta. However, the number of personal formulations is much higher in the Exserpta than in the comparable texts of the Concordia-Decretum, as the following overview shows:
Of particular interest is the passage of C.22 q.3 principium (cf. no. 46), because there we come upon the verb opinari in the first person singular: Cum igitur, ut monstratum esse opinor, reus periurii non esset episcopus (â¦). Considering this passage, we cannot doubt that the âMagisterâ is pointing to himself and is speaking personally. This instance stands out from the cases in which the first person plural is used; the use of the first person plural could perhaps still be a mode of expressing oneself in writing. The same could also be true for inquam, because with this expression it is conceivable that it is used formulaically, but certainly not with opinor.
It is interesting to pay attention to the formulations in the Concordia- Decretum that differ from the Exserpta which use the personal form of the verb in the first person plural:
With 14 occurrences, the most common parallelism is that between Sic habemus (Exserpta) and Ecce (Concordia-Decretum). Then follows that between uideamus in the Exserpta (examples nos. 6, 11, 13, 17, 20, 28, 55) and various impersonal forms in the Concordia-Decretum: sequitur (no. 6), just quoting the auctoritas (no. 55), queritur (nos. 11, 20), considerandum est (no. 13), est pertractandum (no. 17) and uidendum est (no. 28).
(b) The use of predictis auctoritatibus in the Exserpta
It is also striking that in the Exserpta the expression predictis auctoritatibus is often used where we find premissis (or his) auctoritatibus in the Concordia- Decretum. Beyond that, other similar forms appear in the Exserpta: supradictis auctoritatibus, propositis auctoritatibus, and explicatis auctoritatibus, always where we find premissis (or his) auctoritatibus in the Concordia-Decretum. It is also remarkable that in the Dicta of the Concordia-Decretum the expression predictis auctoritatibus does not appear at all.11 On the other hand, we learn from the overview,12 that premissis auctoritatibus appears in the Exserpta, too, namely in six passages where this wording also occurs in the Concordia-Decretum.
(c) Peculiarities in the vocabulary of the Exserpta
The Exserpta make use of rare words or common words with an uncommon meaning. We cannot yet see how often this linguistic particularity occurs. We would need a minutely detailed examination of the entire text of the Exserpta to answer this question because this phenomenon is, by its very nature, not as manifest as the already characterised linguistic particularities. Three examples taken from the material already used and an example from a passage that has not been cited yet will have to suffice here.
(aa) latumie
The word latumie occurs in the Exserpta at the beginning of C.23 in the phrase aliis in carceribus et latumiis reclusis (âothers [were] locked up in dungeons and quarriesâ). It is the parallel of the phrase aliis carcere et ergastulo reclusis (âothers [were] locked up in a dungeon and in a penitentiaryâ) in the Concordia-Decretum. The main spellings of this word in the feminine plural are latomiae (from the Greek latomiai) and lautumiae. Alternative spellings are laotomiae, lautomiae, latumiae, and lautumniae.13 According the Thesaurus linguae latinae the spelling latumiae, as we have it in the Exserpta, occurs in MS âOâ of Eusebiusâ Chronicle as reworked by Jerome.14 The word means âquarriesâ and is used both in a narrower sense to indicate places where stones are actually broken, as well as in a broader sense to indicate special quarries that were used as prisons in antiquity. These kind of quarries are mentioned in Cicero for Syracuse, in Livy and Seneca for Rome, and in Pliny for Sparta.15 Beyond that the word is used in this broader meaning of âprisonâ for unnamed places, too.16 The references mentioned in the Thesaurus linguae latinae are likewise possible âsourcesâ for the author of the Exserpta, scilicet two passages in the digests17 and the source from which Jerome (and also Isidore) took a text for his continuation of the Chronicle of Eusebius.18 The word also occurs in this meaning in some, if only a few, other texts dating from the temporal proximity of Gratian.19
(bb) oculatus
In C.1 q.7 d. p. c.27 the following phrase appears: Vt autem liquidius pateat, que dicturi sumus, sub oculis exemplum quasi oculatum ponamus (âBut in order to make more clearly manifest what we are going to say, let as put an example quasi gifted with insight before the eyesâ).20 The peculiarity of this way of speaking is evident from the following circumstances. An exemplum [quasi] oculatum has not been documented in the texts of the Middle Ages to this day.21 The word quasi which is put before oculatum obviously shows that the author was aware of the fact that it is uncommon to use oculatum in connection with exemplum. The word oculatus is already infrequent in itself; it appears most often in connection with the four living creatures of the Apocalypse who are âcovered with eyes, in front and in backâ (Revelation 4.6), in the expression testis oculatus (âeyewitnessâ) and in figurative expressions such as fide oculata, oculata cognitio, and oculata veritas.
(cc) uicarius
In C.27 q.2 d. p. c.26 we find in the Exserpta the passage: Sic habemus, quod coniuges sine uicario consensu continere non possunt, while the same content is formulated in the Concordia-Decretum as Ecce, quod coniugati sine consensu alterius continentiam profiteri non possunt.22 A reader of the Exserpta has written the gloss pari over the word uicario. This shows two things. First, the reader was aware of the fact that the word uicarius does not mean âvicarious,â as usual, but is used here in the sense of âmutual,â âreciprocalâ and âalternating.â Second, the reader must also have been conscious of the fact that the word in this sense was in need of explanation and a gloss was therefore appropriate.23 In the Concordia-Decretum the word uicarius is never used with this meaning.24 Examples of the use of uicarius with this meaning can be found in the works of Hugh of Saint-Victor (ope vicaria), Peter Damian (vicarius amor, in comparatione vicaria, vicaria inter se impactione), Rabanus Maurus (vicaria dilectio, vicaria revolutione), Gregory the Great (ope uicaria, uicaria confessione), and other authors.25
(dd) anathematis baculo
The fourth example is taken from a text that has not yet been cited, namely D.63 d. p. c.28. In the Exserpta the phrase anathematis baculo appears here, while the Concordia-Decretum read anathematis uinculo.26
The phrase anathematis baculo occurs neither in the Dicta nor in the Auctoritates of the Concordia-Decretum.27 This is all the more astonishing since the Concordia-Decretum contains, besides anathematis uinculo, a lot of other expressions synonymous with it: anathematis sententia, anathematis obproprio, anathematis mucrone, anathematis conclusione, anathematis obligatione, anathematis ultione, anathematis gladio, sub districtione anathematis, anathematis interdictione, and anathematis pena.28 In the Patrologia Latina Database there are more than 800 hits for anathematis vinculo, while for anathematis baculo there is only a single passage from a tenth-century text.29
(d) Linguistic features in a broader sense
In addition to linguistic peculiarities in the proper sense, the Exserpta contain some sentences in which appear, in comparison to the Concordia- Decretum, âalternativeâ comparisons, conceptual pairs, or enumerations. Thus, in C.22 q.5 d. p. c.11 in the Concordia-Decretum, in a discussion concerning the subjectively intended content of a rather general oath, we find the following phrase: uidelicet ne Padum in Nilum conuertant, uel aliquid huiusmodi faciant.30 The Exserpta speak of âmountainsâ and âseasâ instead of two rivers: Vt puta ne montes in maria conuertant, aut tale aliquid faciant.31 Similarly, in C.29. q.1 principium the two people in a discussion of the error as to the person bear the names Virgilius and Plato; in the Exserpta, however, they are called Stichus and Pamphilus.32 Finally, the Exserpta speak in C.29. q.1 principium of Arrius and Sabellius, where the Concordia-Decretum read quisdam hereticorum.33
5 Attempt to Interpret the Language Particularities of the Exserpta
The comparative overview of the manifold linguistic differences between the Dicta Gratiani in the Exserpta and in the Concordia-Decretum makes apparent that the two versions differ from each other significantly in their styles. The style of the Exserpta in comparison to that of the Concordia-Decretum is less âcommon,â less âcalm,â less âsmooth,â and less âdry.â It is more âoriginal,â more âwild,â and sometimes âexuberant.â34 A striking example is the Dictum C.1 q.7 p.c. 27:35
His breuiter explicatis ad ea, que ecclesie discipline seueritate parata sunt ulcisci, ueniamus, et quibus accusantibus uel testificantibus sint conuincendi liquido ostendamus. Et quo quisque iudice uel dampnari uel absolui debeat demonstremus. Et si causa uiciata fuerit quo possit remedio subleuari, si accusatores defecerint, an reus ad purgationem sit cogendus in medium proferamus. Vt autem liquidius pateat, que dicturi sumus, sub oculis exemplum quasi oculatum ponamus, ubi auctoritate[s] hinc inde controuersantes commode distinguantur, et quid auctores sancti exinde sentiant liquidius liquido intimetur.36
This means that with the Exserpta we are not in the âCompilatorâs study.â We are not with âGratianâ who has, so to speak, his formal sources lying in front of him. We are not witnesses who can observe how he compiles the texts concerning the items he has set out to discuss, how he arranges them, how he connects them by his own remarks, comments on them, and brings them into concordance. Rather, with the Exserpta we are âin the classroom.â It is delivered orally. The master says: âI think it was shown ⦠Now we wantâ¦.â We get an insight into a place of teaching, of lively lectures, of arguing. Passages with extreme emphasis bring such a space to life:37 Vt autem liquidius pateat, que dicturi sumus, sub oculis exemplum quasi oculatum ponamus. Vbi auctoritatem hinc inde controuersantes commode distinguantur, et quid auctores sancti exinde sentiant liquidius liquido intimetur.
This is not written language, but spoken language. Moreover, there are passages that make very clear that you have to speak the Exserpta, not read them silently. This will become clear immediately when we discuss the example of C. 1 q. 5 p. c.3 where the meaning only comes from the strong emphasis on the word forte in its special meaning of âcasualâ or âaccidental.â
And the impression comes to mind that here a man is speaking who is a theologically, legally, literarily, semantically and grammatically highly educated person who sprinkles his discourse with knowledge, who cannot refrain from contributing his knowledge and can âcall it upâ at any time. He enjoys the variation. He enjoys rare expressions. He finds joy in teaching. One is often tempted to think of an esprit de contradiction because this teacher is provoked by the text at hand, as it were, to change it linguistically, to vary it, even to extemporise it. It therefore makes sense to imagine the Exserpta in the following âambienceâ: there is a given text. And there is a teacher who teaches using this text. And there are students who listen and take notes. The thing happens in praesenti â âThe artist is present.â
This âambienceâ of the Exserpta becomes visible in a special way in the dictum that is included in the Exserpta between C.1 q.5 c.3 and C.1 q.6 principium, a dictum that does not appear in the Concordia or the Decretum. The passage is not only an example of the âpersonalâ formulations in the Exserpta;38 it can also help to determine the âliterary genreâ of the Exserpta.
The dictum, which for the sake of easier understanding, has been structured according to grammatical aspects, reads:
The text has been the subject of several discussions, particularly in the context of the controversy concerning the placement of the Exserpta in the editorial history of Gratianâs Decretum. It is obviously not easy to decipher its meaning in such a way that Gratianâs way of proceeding is clearly recognisable.40
This text certainly contains the following three clear statements: (1) What has to happen to those who were unknowingly ordained by simoniacs (which is now being asked at the â6th placeâ [i.e. in the 6th Quaestio]) is said above in a chapter of Urban. (2) We now want to cite this chapter. (3) This chapter was not fully cited âaboveâ because a full citation âthereâ was not necessary.
The reason why it was not necessary to fully quote the chapter there is found in the inserted passage: quia forte ibi quantum ad negotium pertinebat. The understanding of this sentence depends on the meaning and emphasis of the word forte in the sense of âcasualâ or âaccidentalâ as opposed to âsubstantial.â The sentence is therefore to be translated as: âbecause it was only an accidental part of the topic.â
There is no doubt that supra here indicates that the passage C.1 q.4 p. c.10. C.1 q.4 also has the effects of knowledge or ignorance as its subject. However, it was not directly about âpersons who unknowingly were ordained by simoniacs,â which is what C.1 q.6 is about now. Dealing with them was only an argument for dealing with other people, namely children whose fathers had done something punishable without the children knowing.
Against this background, the translation of the dictum could be as follows:
If the word âaboveâ (supra) indicates the passage C.1 q.4 d. p. c.10, we find there in the Exserpta a short summary of the text which the master intends to cite now, but no âchapterâ (capitulum) that (1) would be explicitly attributed to Urban and that (2) would reproduce the wording of a chapter even to some extent, let alone âcompletelyâ (integre):
Item si excusatur qui a symoniaco ordinatur ignoranter, et utique iste excusari potest, qui per ignorantiam symoniace ordinatur.41
The chapter which it is about (and which shall be quoted in the Exserpta in presenti) is therefore not available âfurther upâ in the Exserpta. However, it can be found in the Concordia-Decretum under C.1 q.1 c.108, which reads:42
De quibus Vrbanus papa ait.
De his qui non symoniace a symoniacis ordinantur.
Si qui43 a symoniacis non symoniace ordinati sunt,44 siquidem probare potuerint45 se, cum ordinarentur,46 nescisse eos symoniacos esse,47 et tunc pro catholicis habebantur48 in ecclesia, talium ordinationes misericorditer49 sustinemus, si tamen eos laudabilis uita commendat. Qui uero scienter se a symoniacis consecrari immo execrari permiserint, eorum consecrationem omnino irritam50 esse decernimus.
This corresponds â with four minor variations â to the text in the Exserpta, which is cited after C.1 q.5 p. c.3.51
If we (a) consider the wording of the chapter of Urban, which the âMasterâ now wants to quote, and (b) consider what he says about the (âincompleteâ) âquotationâ of this chapter âaboveâ (i.e. C.1 q.4. d. p. c.10), and (c) add what was actually written in C.1. q.4. d. p.c.10, we come to the following conclusion: the âMasterâ has something in front of him that is more than what he reads. It differs from the manuscript. The speaker must have had a complete chapter of Urban with inscription before his eyes â both with C.1 q.4 d. p. c.10, as now with C.1 q.5 d. p. c.3. Now (âin the presentâ), with C.1 q.5 d. p. c.3, he quotes it completely. There are (only) two options for having it before his eyes: either the speaker had one of his âformal sourcesâ in front of him (in this case the Collectio trium librorum, 2, 9, 11), or he had the Concordia, where the text in C.1 q.1 c.108 is located.
So the text was there (in the book the teacher had in front of him) and was skipped by him at a previous time for the reasons mentioned. Now the text is just right as the answer to the sixth question. Therefore, Gratian says: Now â in presenti â we want to cite it to get a clear insight into this question. The text, therefore, was not at this place before (but also not with C.1 q.4 d. p. c.10).
This means that we are in the middle of the class. It is currently taking place, in presenti. The âMasterâ is teaching. He comes to Quaestio 6 of the Causa 1. He uses a text that he has skipped. He deviates from the written order of the book he uses for the lesson. He goes back and quotes the text. And apparently someone takes notes. If this interpretation is correct, then one can suppose a âstarting pointâ and interpret what occurs in the Exserpta as a variation of this âstarting point,â as documentation of a lesson in execution, live.
This means that the Exserpta in the manuscript Sankt Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, 673 is the, albeit beautifully designed, copy of a work that was created when a lecture was listened to, and was written down while listening, while the teacher who lectured used a text which he freely handled according to the requirements â omitting, varying, extemporising.
The Exserpta bear the traces of a speaking process that has been documented.52 The manuscript of the Exserpta that has come down to us was created in the scriptorium, which means that it was copied from a prototype and also illuminated. The prototype, however, must have been something like âlecture notesâ that were created in the classroom. The teacher probably had the Concordia of Gratian as the basis for his âlecture.â53 The Exserpta give us a precious insight into the way in which the work of Gratian was conveyed in the classroom.
Appendix 1: List of the Linguistic Peculiarity âPersonal Formulationsâ54
-
1) D.27 d. p. c.8 / 3b: distinguamus (distinguendum est)
-
2) D.33 pr. / 8a: sic habemus (ecce)
-
3) D.34 d. p. c.3 / 8b: appellamus (intelligitur)
-
4) D.34 d. p. c.8 / 9a: credimus (creditur)
-
5) D.34 d. p. c.16 / 9b: defectui nostre infirmitatis (temporum defectui)
-
6) D.35 pr. / 9bâ10a: ostendimus (monstratum est) / nunc uideamus (sequitur)
-
7) D.36 pr. / 10a: debemus (oportet)
-
8) D.37 d. p. c.7 / 11b: inueniamus (inueniremus) / uertamus (uertamus) / iubemur (iubemur)
-
9) D.39 pr. / 13a: ostendamus (queritur)
-
10) D.46 d. p. c.1 /14a: sic habemus (ecce)
-
11) D.50 pr. / 14b: uideamus (queritur)
-
12) D.50 d. p. c.24 / 16b: uideamus (inspiciamus)
-
13) D.60 pr. / 21b: ostendimus (ecce ostensum est) / uideamus (considerandum est)
-
14) D.101 d. p. c.1: dictum est (tracatauimus) / transeamus (transeamus) / deduca-mus (deducatur)
-
15) C.1 q.1 d. proprium (inter d. p. c. 96 et d. p. c. 112) / 34b: uideamus (-)
-
16) C.1 q.2 pr. / 34b: adducamus (conprobatur) / intendimus (-) / accedamus (-)
-
17) C.1 q.4 pr. / 38a: uideamus (pertractandum est)
-
18) C.1 q.5 d. proprium p. c. 3 / 41b: adducamus (-).
-
19) C.1 q.7 d. a. c.4 / 42a: habemus (item)
-
20) C.1 q.7 d. p. c.23 / 44a: ostenso (ostendimus) / uideamus (queritur)
-
21) C.1 q.7 d. p. c.27 / 44bâ45a: ueniamus (ueniamus) / ostendamus (ostendentes) / demonstremus (-) / proferamus (-) / dicturi sumus (dicturi sumus) / ponamus (ponatur)
-
22) C.2 q.1 d. p. c.18 /52a: hic habemus (ecce)
-
23) C.2 q.7 pr. / 56b: accedamus (-)
-
24) C.2 q.7 d. p. c.39 / 61a: ostendimus (ostensum est) / demonstremus (demon-strandum est)
-
25) C.2 q.7 d. p. c.39 / 61b: rursus habemus (item)
-
26) C.2 q.7 d. p. c.44 / 64a: agamus (agamus)
-
27) C.5 q.3 d. p. c.1 / 75a: sic habemus (ecce)
-
28) C.6 q.1 d. p. c.16 / 77b: uideamus (uidendum est)
-
29) C.6 q.1 d. p. c.19 / 78a: disputauimus (disputatum est)
-
30) C.6 q.2 pr. / 78b: inspiciamus (inspiciatur)
-
31) C.7 q.1 d. p. c.16 / 81b: sic habemus (ecce)
-
32) C.7 q.1 d. p. c.41 / 83a: sic habemus (ecce)
-
33) C.8 q.1 d. p. c.24 / 86a: diximus (dictum est)
-
34) C.11 q.3 d. p. c.40 / 97a: precibimur (iubemur)
-
35) C.11 q.3 d. p. c.43 / 97a: inquam (inquam)
-
36) C.12 q.2 d. p. c.75 / 108a: ostendimus (ostensum est)
-
37) C.14 q.1 d. p. c.1 / 115b: legimus (legimus)
-
38) C.15 q.1 d. p. c.13 / 120aâb: respondemus (respondetur)
-
39) C.18 q.2 d. p. c.8 / 143a: sic habemus (ecce)
-
40) C.18 q.2 d. p. c.29 / 144a: intelligere debemus (intelligendum est)
-
41) C.22 q.1 pr. /150a: - (prohibemur)
-
42) C.22 q.1 d. p. c.14 / 150b: labamur (labamur)
-
43) C.22 q.1 d. p. c.15 / 150b: uti debeamus (sit utendum)
-
44) C.22 q.2 d. p. c.7 / 151b: distinguamus (distinguendum est)
-
45) C.22 q.2 d. p. c.21 / 152b: sic habemus (ecce)
-
46) C.22 q.3 pr. /153a: monstratum esse opinor (monstratum est) / diximus (mon-stratum est)
-
47) C.22 q.4 d. p. c.21 / 154a: diximus (diximus)
-
48) C.22 q.5 d. p. c.11 / 157a: ut puta (uidelicet)
-
49) C.27 q.2 d. p. c.26 / 167b: sic habemus (ecce)
-
50) C.27 q.2 d. p. c.29 /168a: sic habemus (ecce)
-
51) C.29 q.1 pr. / 170b: dicemus (dicendi sunt)
-
52) C.29 q.1 pr. / 171a: legimus (-)
-
53) C.29 q.1 pr. / 171a: similiter raciocinamur (item)
-
54) C.29 q.2 pr. / 171a: transeamus (proposita est)
-
55) C.30 q.5 pr. / 174b: uideamus (-)
-
56) C.31 q.1 d. p. c.1 / 177aâb: sic habemus (ecce) / intelligimus (intelligendum est)
-
57) C.32 q.1 d. p. c.13 / 178b: â (diximus) / patet (patet)
-
58) C.32 q.6 pr. / 179a: sic habemus (ecce)
-
59) C.32 q.7 d. p. c.16 / 179b: sic habemus (his monstratur)
-
60) C.33 q.1 d. p. c.3 /181b: sic habemus (ecce)
-
61) C.33 q.3 [de pen.] pr. / 183a â (euagati sumus) / accedamus (-)
-
62) C.35 q.1 pr. / 187b: nostras (nostras) / nostrarum (nostrae) / possimus (liceat) / respondemus (respondetur)
Appendix 2: List Concerning predictis auctoritatibus â premissis auctoritatibus
A. Concordia-Decretum: premissis [auctoritatibus] / Exserpta: predictis [auctoritatibus]
1) D.37 d. p. c.15 (Sg 12a; 2); C.11 q.3 d. p. c.40 (97a); 3) C.15 q.1 d. p. c.2 (119a);
4) C.22 q.1 d. p. c.14 (150b); 5) C.22 q.5 d. p. c.19 (158a); 6) C.30 q.5 d. p. c.8 (171a);
7) C.35 q.2â3 d. p. c.19 (189a).
B. Concordia-Decretum: his [auctoritatibus] / Exserpta: predictis [auctoritatibus]
1) C.27 q.2 d. p. c.15 (167a); 2) C.31 q.2 d. p. c.4 (177a); C.36 q.2 d. p. c.6 (200a).
C. Concordia-Decretum: premissis [auctoritatibus] / Exserpta: propostis [auctoritatibus]
1) C.10 q.1 d. p. c.14 (91a); 2) C.30 q.5 d. p. c.11 (176a).
D. Concordia-Decretum: premissis [auctoritatibus] / Exserpta: supradictis [auctoritatibus]
1) C.23 q.8 d. p. c.18 (164b).
E. Concordia-Decretum: premissis [auctoritatibus] / Exserpta: explicatis55 [auctoritatibus]
1) C.1 q.7 d. p. c.22 (44b).
F. Concordia-Decretum: premissis [auctoritatibus] / Exserpta: premissis [auctoritatibus]
1) D.50 d. p. c.51 (17bâ18a); 2) D.63 d. p. c.25 (24b); 3) C.1 q.7 d. p. c.4 (42b); 4) C.2 q.5 d. p. c.17 (51b); 5) C.33. q.2 d. p. c.9 (182b); 6) C.36 q.2 d. p. c.7 (200a).
âExserptaâ means in this study: Exserpta ex decretis sanctorum patrum of Sankt Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, 673 (Sg), 3aâ203a.
âConcordiaâ indicates in this study the âFirst Recensionâ of the Decretum Gratiani as we find it in the group of the manuscripts Aa, Bc, Fd, and P; cf. Anders Winroth, The Making of Gratianâs Decretum (Cambridge, 2000), passim; Carlos Larrainzar, âEl Decreto de Graciano del códice Fd (= Firenze, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, Conventi Soppressi A. I. 402). In memoriam Rudolf Weigand,â Ius Ecclesiae 10 (1998), 421â489; Carlos Larrainzar, âEl borrador de la âConcordiaâ de Graciano: Sankt Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek MS 673 (=Sg),â Ius Ecclesiae 11 (1999), 593â666; Carlos Larrainzar, âLa formación del Decreto de Graciano por etapas,â ZRG.KA 87 (2001), 67â83.
âDecretumâ indicates in this study the Decretum magistri Gratiani in its common version; cf. Corpus iuris canonici, ed. Emil Friedberg, 2 vols (Leipzig, 1879â1881, repr. Graz, 1959), vol. 1: Decretum magistri Gratiani.
Cf. Titus Lenherr, âDie vier Fassungen von C. 3 q. 1 d. p. c. 6 im Decretum Gratiani,â AKKR 169 (2000), 351â381, at 362â368; José Miguel Viejo-Ximenez, âVariantes textuales y variantes doctrinales in C. 2 q. 8,â in Proceedings of the Twelfth International Congress of Medieval Canon Law, Washington, D.C. 1â7 August 2004, ed. Uta Renate Blumenthal (Vatican City, 2008), 161â190; José Miguel Viejo-Ximénez, âNon omnis error consensum euacuat. La C. 26 de los Exserpta de Sankt Gallen (Sg),â in Iustitia et Iudicium (Vatican City, 2010), 617â641, at 620â625; Kenneth Pennington, âThe Biography of Gratian, the Father of Canon Law,â University of Villanova Law Review 59 (2014), 679â706, at 695.
Cf. José Miguel Viejo-Ximenez, âNon omnis error consensum euacuat (n. 4),â 617â641; Titus Lenherr, âDie vier Fassungen (n. 4),â 362â368; Carlos Larrainzar, âEl borrador de la âConcordiaâ de Graciano (n. 2),â passim; Carlos Larrainzar, âLa formación del Decreto de Graciano por etapas (n. 2),â passim.
At least three of the linguistic particularities present in the Dicta also occur in the Inscriptions, the Summaries, and the Authorities: shorter versions, transpositions, and synonyms.
In the following presentation the two versions are arranged in units of whole sentences or parts of them so that we can better describe and compare the two versions. In some units, subdivisions occur; these are numbered in square brackets.
Cf. D.50 d. p. c.24 in the version of the Exserpta (Sg 16b); cf. the version of Concordia-Decretum: Quomodo igitur huiusmodi (â¦) dissonantia ad concordiam reuocari ualeat (edF 1092).
Within the scope of this study we cannot discuss the consequences of the linguistic particularities concerning the prosody, emphasis, etc.
Cf. Appendix 1.
In the Concordia-Decretum the word predictus can only be found in auctoritates, which are quoted as arguments, cf. Wortkonkordanz zum Decretum Gratiani, ed. Timothy Reuter, Gabriel Silagi, MGH Hilfsmittel 10 (München, 1990), v. praedicere, 3662â3664. The Wortkonkordanz mentions only one exception, i.e. C.20 q.2 d. p. c.3. This passage reads in the edition of Emil Friedberg: Hac auctoritate predicta (â¦) docetur, and at the same time it is noted in footnote 45 concerning predicta: âdeest ABDFâ (cf. 848). The word predicta is absent in the manuscripts of the Concordia, too (cf. Aa, fol. 45r; Fd, fol. 57va).
Cf. Appendix 2.
Cf. Thesaurus linguae latinae, vol. VII, Pars altera, Sectio KK, LâLyxipyretos (Leipzig, 1970â1979), v. latomiae, 1010, 3â17.
The Codex âOâ is a manuscript that is kept in the Oxford Bodleian Library today and dates from the first half of the sixth century, cf. Alfred Schöne, Die Weltchronik des Eusebius in ihrer Bearbeitung durch Hieronymus (Berlin, 1900), 29â30; cf. also The Bodleian Manuscript of Jeromeâs Version of the Chronicle of Eusebius. Reproduced in Collotype. With an Introduction by John Knight Fotheringham (Oxford, 1905).
Cf. Thesaurus linguae latinae (n. 16), v. latomiae, 1010, 21â51.
Cf. ibid. 52â57.
Dig. 4.6.9, Callistratus: âvinculorum autem appellatio latius accipitur: nam etiam inclusos veluti lautumiis vinctorum numero haberi placetâ; Dig. 11.5.1.4, Ulpianus: âut aut multa multetur aut in lautumiis vel in vincula publica ducaturâ.
Cf. Thesaurus linguae latinae (n. 16): âORIGO Rom. chron. I p. 145, 1 Tarquinius Superbus invenit â as, tormenta fustos eqs. (inde HIER. chron. a. Abr. 1470 et ISID. l. 61)â (1010, 55â56).
Cf. Romuald of Salerno: Iste [sc. Tarquinius] primum excogitauit uincla, taureas, fustes, lautomias, carceres, compedes, catenas, exilia, atque metalla, cf. Romuladi Salernitani Chronicon, a cura de C.A. Garufi (Città di Castello), 26 l. 22â23. It occurs also in Vita Aniani from the ninth century, where it reads: qui lantumniis aut ergastulis tenebantur inclusi, cf. Vita s. Aniani episcopi Aurelianensis. â B. Krusch, MGH, Script. rer. Merov. III (1896) 108â117, 109, 14.
Cf. Appendix 1, no. 21; Sg 44b. In the Concordia-Decretum it reads simply: Et ut facilius pateat quod dicturi sumus, exemplum ponatur sub oculis (edF 438).
This result is based on searches in the Patrologia Latina Database, Library of Latin Texts, Brepols Publishers n.v. (Turnhout, 2001), and the Database of Latin Dictionaries (DLD) by CTLO, Brepols Publishers (Turnhout, 2018).
Cf. Appendix 1, no. 49; Sg 167b; edF 1070.
It is notable, too, that the gloss does not use the same word found in the Concordia-Decretum, sc. alterius.
Cf. Wortkonkordanz zum Decretum Gratiani (n. 14), v. vicarius, 4831â4832.
For evidence cf. Database of Latin Dictionaries (DLD), Brepols Publishers (Turnhout, 2018) v. vicarius. Cf. also Patrologia Latina Database and Library of Latin Texts.
Exserpta: et quisquis eorum suffragio ecclesiam optineret anathematis baculo feriretur (p. 25b). Concordia-Decretum: et quisquis eorum suffragio ecclesiam obtineret anathematis uinculo innodaretur (edF 244).
Cf. Wortkonkordanz zum Decretum Gratiani (n. 14), v. baculus, 393.
Ibid. v. anathema, 208â211.
Cf. PL 155: 198B: Paulus S. Petri Carnotensis Liber primus sive Hagani Praesulis, Vetus Agano, cap. I.: anathematis baculo percussus.
Cf. edF 885â886.
Sg 157b.
Cf. edF1091; Sg 170b.
Cf. the quotation of this passage above in the paragraph âA second example,â see 102.
Cf. Titus Lenherr, âDie vier Fassungen (n. 4),â 375: âAuffällig ist [â¦] dass [â¦] fast kein Stein auf dem anderen geblieben ist [â¦] [Sg] unterscheidet sich wesentlich im Stil, und zwar in der Wortwahl, in der Grammatik, in der Wortstellung und im Gebrauch von nominalem und verbalem Ausdruck. Dabei ist der Stil von Sg âungewöhnlichâ, ja, von originärer Kraft [â¦] Die verschiedenen Stile [â¦] legen [..] nahe, Sg mehr in einem âmündlichen Milieuâ anzusiedeln, Aa (Bc) Fd P mehr in einem âschriftlichenâ. Daher der Gedanke, ob sich die Merkmale von Sg nicht am ehesten erklären lassen, wenn man Sg als die (Abschrift einer) Nachschrift einer Vorlesung betrachtet, die sich auf die Fassung von Aa Bc Fd P stützte.â
The emphatic elements in comparison to the version of Concordia-Decretum are put in italics.
Sg 44bâ45a; cf. the version of Concordia-Decretum, edF 438.
The emphatic elements are not italicized.
Cf. Appendix 1, no. 18.
Sg 41b.
Cf. Kenneth Pennington, âThe Biography of Gratian (n. 4),â who translates: âWhat moreover ought to be done with those clerics who unknowingly are ordained by symoniacs, which is asked in the sixth question, [can be found] in the chapter of Urban that has been cited above, but indeed, because it was not necessary to place the entire text there as far as it pertained to the issue, I bring it forward hereâ (679). Cf. Anders Winroth, âRecent Work on the Making of Gratianâs Decretum,â BMCL 26 (2006), 1â29, who translates: âWhat 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 âcapitulumâ of Urban, which was not necessary to put there in its entirety in that context, but which we now bring forth as evidenceâ (21).
Sg 38b.
Cf. Aa, fol. 104va, Bc, fol. 109vbâ110ra, Fd, fol. 23ra, Mk, fol. 81ra, edF 400â401.
quis Bc, inquit add. Sg.
ordinati sunt] ordinantur Sg.
potuerit Sg.
ordinaretur Sg.
deest Aa ac, 3L.
habeantur Sg.
sustinemus misericorditer tr. Mk edF.
irrita Aa.
Sg 41b; see footnotes 48, 49, 50, 51, 53 above. The insertion of inquit is noteworthy â this is also an indication of the âoralityâ of the current lecture.
Moreover, of course, the manuscript bears the traces of a copy of this âdocumentationâ with the errors that occurred during the copying.
Two arguments for using the â1. Recensionâ are: (1) The âcompleteâ chapter of Urban has the same scope in Sg and the 1. Recension (in contrast to the 3-book collection, where a first part precedes the text cited by Sg and the 1st Recension); (2) Sg has the same summarium for the text as the 1. Recension.
After the list number follows the reference in the Decretum Gratiani, then the page number in Sg, and after the colon the version of the Exserpta and in brackets the version in the Concordia-Decretum.
pc, expli[ci]tis (?) ac.