[1] _Zur Geschichte des Kanons_, pp. 3-68.
[2] _Clement Hom._, ap. Coteler. vol. i. p. 608.
[3] _Stromata_, vi. 15, p. 803, ed. Potter.
[4] _Adv. Haeres._ i. 95.
[5] Euseb. _H.E._ v. 24.
[6] _De praescript. Haereticorum_, chs. 12, 13.
[7] _Comment. in Mat._ iii. p. 916, ed. Delarue.
[8] _Monumenta vetera ad Donatistarum historiam pertinentia_, ed.
Dupin, p. 168.
[9] At the end of the _Iambi ad Seleucum_, on the books of the New
Testament, he adds, [Greek: outos acheudestatos kanon an ein ton
theopneuston grachon].
[10] _Prologus galeatus in ii. Reg._
[11] _Expos. in Symb. Apost._ 37, p. 374, ed. Migne.
[12] After the word is added [Greek: kai paradothenta, pioteuthenta
te theia einai]. _Opp._ vol. i. p. 961, ed. Benedict.
CANONESS (Fr. _chanoinesse_, Ger. _Kanonissin_, Lat. _canonica_ or
_canonica virgo_), a female beneficiary of a religious college. In the
8th century chapters of canons were instituted in the Frankish empire,
and in imitation of these certain women took common vows of obedience
and chastity, though not of poverty. Like nuns they had common table and
dormitory, and recited the breviary, but generally the rule was not so
strict as in the case of nuns. The canonesses often taught girls, and
were also employed in embroidering ecclesiastical vestments and
transcribing liturgical books. A distinction was drawn between regular
and secular canonesses, the latter being of noble family and not
practising any austerity. Some of their abbesses were notable feudal
princesses. In Germany several foundations of this kind (e.g.
Gandersheim, Herford and Quedlinburg), which were practically secular
institutions before the Reformation, adopted the Protestant faith, and
still exist, requiring of their members the simple conditions of
celibacy and obedience to their superior during membership. These
institutions (_Stifter_) are now practically almshouses for the
unmarried daughters of noble families. In some cases the right of
presentation belongs to the head of the family, sometimes admission is
gained by purchase; but in modern times a certain number of prebends
have been created for the daughters of deserving officials. The
organization of the _Stift_ is collegiate, the head bearing the ancient
titles of abbess, prioress or provostess (_Probstin_), and the
canonesses (_Stiftsdamen_) meet periodically in _Konvent_ for the
discussion of the affairs of the community. The ladies are not bound to
residence. In many of these _Stifter_ quaint pre-Reformation customs and
ceremonies still survive; thus, at the convent of St John the Baptist at
Schleswig, on the day of the patron saint, the room in which the
_Konvent_ is held is draped in black and a realistic life-size wax head
of St John on a charger is placed in the centre of the table round which
the canonesses sit.
CANONIZATION, in its widest sense, an act by which in the Christian
Church the ecclesiastical authority grants to a deceased believer the
honour of public _cultus_. In the early Church there was no formal
canonization. The _cultus_ applied at first to local martyrs, and it was
only in exceptional circumstances that a kind of judiciary inquiry and
express decision became necessary to legitimate this _cultus_. The
peculiar situation of the Church of Africa explains the _Vindicatio
martyrum_, which was early practised there (_Optatus Milevit._, i. 16).
In the _cultus_ rendered to confessors, the authorization of the Church
had long been merely implicit. But when an express decision was given,
it was the bishop who gave it. Gradually the canonization of saints came
to be included in the centralizing movement which reserved to the pope
the most important acts of ecclesiastical power. The earliest
acknowledged instance of canonization by the pope is that of Ulric of
Augsburg, who was declared a saint by John XV. in A.D. 993. From that
time the pontifical intervention became more and more frequent, and, in
practice, the right of the bishops in the matter of canonization
continued to grow more restricted. In 1170 the new right was
sufficiently established for Pope Alexander III. to affirm that the
bishops could not institute the _cultus_ of a new saint without the
authority of the Roman Church (Cap. _Audivimus_, Decret. _De Rell. et
venerat. Sanctorum_, iii. 115). The 12th and, especially, the 13th
centuries furnish many examples of canonizations pronounced by the
popes, and the procedure of this period is well ascertained. It was much
more summary than that practised in modern times. The evidence of those
who had known the holy personages was collected on the spot. The inquiry
was as rapid as the judgment, and both often took place a short time
after the death of the saint, as in the cases of St Thomas of Canterbury
(died 1170, canonized 1173), St Peter of Castelnau (died on the 15th of
January 1208, canonized on the 12th of March of the same year), St
Francis of Assisi (died on the 4th of October 1226, canonized on the
19th of July 1228), and St Anthony of Padua (died on the 13th of June
1231, canonized on the 3rd of June 1232).
At this period there was no marked difference between canonization and
beatification. In modern practice, as definitively settled by the
decrees of Pope Urban VIII. (1625 and 1634), the two acts are totally
distinct. Canonization is the solemn and definitive act by which the
pope decrees the plenitude of public honours. Beatification consists in
permitting a _cultus_, the manifestations of which are restricted, and
is merely a step towards canonization.
The procedure at present followed at the Roman curia is either
_exceptional_ or _common_. The approval of immemorial _cultus_ comes
within the category of exceptional procedure. Urban VIII., while
forbidding the rendering of a public _cultus_ without authorization from
the Holy See, made an exception in favour of the blessed who were at
that time (1625) in possession of an immemorial _cultus_, i.e. dating
back at least a century (1525). The procedure _per viam casus excepti_
consists in the legitimation of a _cultus_ which has been rendered to a
saint for a very long time. The causes of the martyrs (_declarationis
martyrii_) also are exceptional. Juridical proof is required of the
_fact_ of the martyrdom and of its _cause_, i.e. it must be established
that the servant of God was put to death through hatred of the faith.
These are the two cases which constitute exceptional procedure.
The _common_ procedure is that in which the cause is prosecuted _per
viam non cultus_. It is, in reality, a suit at law, pleaded before the
tribunal of the Congregation of Rites, which is a permanent commission
of cardinals, assisted by a certain number of subordinate officers and
presided over by a cardinal. The supreme judge in the matter is the pope
himself. The _postulator_, who is the mandatory of a diocese or
ecclesiastical commonalty, is the solicitor. He must furnish the proofs,
which are collected according to very stringent rules. The _promoter of
the faith_, popularly called the "devil's advocate" (_advocatus
diaboli_), is the defendant, whose official duty is to point out to the
tribunal the weak points of the case.
The procedure is loaded with many formalities, of which the historical
explanation lies in the tribunals of the ancient system, and which
considerably delay the progress of the causes. The first decisive step
is the _introduction of the cause_. If, by the advice of the cardinals
who have examined the documents, the pope pronounce his approval, the
servant of God receives the title of "Venerable," but is not entitled to
any manifestation of _cultus_. Only in the event of the claimant passing
this test successfully can the essential part of the procedure be begun,
which will result in conferring on the Venerable the title of "Blessed."
This part consists in three distinct proceedings: (1) to establish a
reputation for sanctity, (2) to establish the heroic quality of the
virtues, (3) to prove the working of miracles. A favourable judgment on
all three of these tests is called the decree _de tuto_, by which the
pope decides that they may safely proceed to the solemn beatification of
the servant of God (_Tuto procedi potest ad solemnem V.S.D.N.
beatificationem_). In the ceremony of beatification the essential part
consists in the reading of the pontifical brief, placing the Venerable
in the rank of the Blessed, which is done during a solemn mass,
celebrated with special rites in the great hall above the vestibule of
the basilica of St Peter.
The process of canonization, which follows that of beatification, is
usually less lengthy. It consists principally in the discussion of the
miracles (usually two in number) obtained by the intercession of the
Blessed since the decree of beatification. After a great number of
formalities and prayers, the pope pronounces the sentence, and indicates
eventually the day on which he will proceed to the ceremony of
canonization, which takes place with great solemnity in the basilica of
St Peter.
The extremely complicated procedure which is prescribed for the conduct
of the cases in order to ensure every opportunity for exercising rigour
and discretion, considerably retards the progress of the causes, and
necessitates a numerous staff. This circumstance, together with the
custom of ornamenting the basilica of St Peter very richly on the day of
the ceremony, accounts for the considerable cost which a canonization
entails. To prevent abuses, a minute tariff of expenses was drawn up
during the pontificate of Leo XIII.
The Greek Church, represented by the patriarch of Constantinople, and
the Russian Church, represented by the Holy Synod, also canonize their
saints after a preliminary examination of their titles to public
_cultus_. Their procedure is less rigorous than that of the Roman
Church, and as yet has been but imperfectly studied.
See J. Fontanini, _Codex Constitutionum quas summi pontifices
ediderunt in solemni canonizatione sanctorum_ (Rome, 1729, a
collection of original documents); Pr. Lambertini (Pope Benedict
XIV.), _De servorum Dei beatificatione et beatorum canonizatione_
(Bologna, 1734-1738), several times reprinted, and more remarkable for
erudition and knowledge of canon law than for historical criticism;
Al. Lauri, _Codex pro postulatoribus causarum beatificationis et
canonizationis, recognovit Joseph Fornari_ (Romae, 1899); F.W. Faber,
_Essay on Beatification, Canonization, &c._ (London, 1848); A.
Boudinhon, _Les Proces de beatification et de canonisation_ (Paris,
1905); E. Golubinskij, _Istorija Kanonizacii sviatich v russko j
cerkvi_ (Moscow, 1903). (H. De.)
CANON LAW. Canon law, _jus canonicum_, is the sum of the laws which
regulate the ecclesiastical body; for this reason it is also called
ecclesiastical law, _jus ecclesiasticum_. It is also referred to under
the name of _canones, sacri canones_, a title of great antiquity, for
the [Greek: kanones], _regulae_, were very early distinguished from the
secular laws, the [Greek: nomoi], _leges_.
Word "canon." Different meanings.
The word [Greek: kanon], canon, has been employed in ecclesiastical
literature in several different senses (see CANON above). The
disciplinary decisions of the council of Nicaea, for example (can. 1, 2,
&c.), employ it in the sense of an established rule, ecclesiastical in
its origin and in its object. But the expression is most frequently used
to designate disciplinary laws, in which case canons are distinguished
from dogmatic definitions. With regard to form, the decisions of
councils, even when dogmatic, are called canons; thus the definitions of
the council of Trent or of the Vatican, which generally begin with the
words "_Si quis dixerit_," and end with the anathema, are canons; while
the long chapters, even when dealing with matters of discipline, retain
the name of chapters or decrees. Similarly, it has become customary to
give the name of canons to the texts inserted in certain canonical
compilations such as the _Decretum_ of Gratian, while the name of
chapters is given to the analogous quotations from the Books of the
Decretals. It is merely a question of words and of usage. As to the
expression _jus canonicum_, it implies the systematic codification of
ecclesiastical legislation, and had no existence previous to the labours
which resulted in the _Corpus juris canonici_.
Divisions.
Canon law is divided into public law and private law; the former is
concerned with the constitution of the Church, and, consequently, with
the relations between her and other bodies, religious and civil; the
latter has as its object the internal discipline of the ecclesiastical
body and its members. This division, which has been found convenient for
the study of canon law, has no precedent in the collections of texts.
With regard to the texts now in force, the name of _jus antiquum_,
ancient law, has been given to the laws previous to the _Corpus juris
canonici_; the legislation of this _Corpus_ has been called _jus novum_,
new law; and finally, the name of recent law, _jus novissimum_, has been
given to the law established by the council of Trent and subsequent
papal constitutions. There is a further distinction between the written
law, _jus scriptum_, laws made by the councils or popes, which are to be
found in the collections, and the unwritten law, _jus non scriptum_, a
body of practical rules arising rather from natural equity and from
custom than from formal laws; with this is connected the customary law.
In the Church, as in other societies, it has happened that the unwritten
customary law has undergone a gradual diminution in importance, as a
consequence of centralization and the accumulation of written laws;
nowadays it need not be reckoned with, save in cases where local customs
are involved. The common law is that which is intended to regulate the
whole body; special or local law is that which is concerned with certain
districts or certain categories of persons, by derogation from or
addition to the common law.
Sources.
By the _sources_ or authors of the canon law are meant the authorities
from which it is derived; they must obviously be of such a nature as to
be binding upon the whole religious body, or at least upon a specified
portion of it. In the highest rank must be placed Christ and the
Apostles, whose dispositions for the constitution and government of the
Church are contained in the New Testament, completed by tradition; for
the Church did not accept the disciplinary and ritual provisions of the
Old Testament as binding upon her (see Acts xi., xv.). To the apostles
succeeded the episcopal body, with its chief the bishop of Rome, the
successor of St. Peter, whose legislative and disciplinary power, by a
process of centralization, underwent a slow but uninterrupted
development. It is then to the episcopate, assembled in ecumenical
council, and to its chief, that the function of legislating for the
whole Church belongs; the inferior authorities, local councils or
isolated bishops and prelates, can only make special laws or statutes,
valid only for that part of the Church under their jurisdiction. Most of
the canons, however, which constitute the ancient law, and notably those
which appear in the _Decretum_ of Gratian, emanate from local councils,
or even from individual bishops; they have found a place in the common
law because the collections of canons, of which they formed the most,
notable part, have been everywhere adopted.
Having made these general observations, we must now consider the history
of those texts and collections of canons which to-day form the
ecclesiastical law of the Western Church: (1) up to the _Decretum_ of
Gratian, (2) up to the council of Trent, (3 and 4) up to the present
day, including the codification ordered by Pius X.
1. _From the Beginning to the Decretum of Gratian._--At no time, and
least of all during the earliest centuries, was there any attempt to
draw up a uniform system of legislation for the whole of the Christian
Church. The various communities ruled themselves principally according
to their customs and traditions, which, however, possessed a certain
uniformity resulting from their close connexion with natural and divine
law. Strangely enough, those documents which bear the greatest
resemblance to a small collection of canonical regulations, such as the
Didache, the Didascalia and the Canons of Hippolytus, have not been
retained, and find no place in the collections of canons, doubtless for
the reason that they were not official documents. Even the Apostolical
Constitutions (q.v.), an expansion of the Didache and the Didascalia,
after exercising a certain amount of influence, were rejected by the
council in Trullo (692). Thus the only pseudo-epigraphic document
preserved in the law of the Greek Church is the small collection of the
eighty-five so-called "Apostolic Canons" (q.v.). The compilers, in their
several collections, gathered only occasional decisions, the outcome of
no pre-determined plan, given by councils or by certain great bishops.
Greek collection.
These compilations began in the East. It appears that in several
different districts canons made by the local assemblies[1] were added to
those of the council of Nicaea which were everywhere accepted and
observed. The first example seems to be that of the province of Pontus,
where after the twenty canons of Nicaea were placed the twenty-five
canons of the council of Ancyra (314), and the fifteen of that of
Neocaesarea (315-320). These texts were adopted at Antioch, where there
were further added the twenty-five canons of the so-called council _in
encaeniis_ of that city (341). Soon afterwards, Paphlagonia contributed
twenty canons passed at the council of Gangra (held, according to the
_Synodicon orientale_, in 343),[2] and Phrygia fifty-nine canons of the
assembly of Laodicea (345-381?), or rather of the compilation known as
the work of this council.[3] The collection was so well and so widely
known that all these canons were numbered in sequence, and thus at the
council of Chalcedon (451) several of the canons of Antioch were read
out under the number assigned to them in the collection of the whole. It
was further increased by the twenty-eight (thirty) canons of Chalcedon;
about the same time were added the four canons of the council of
Constantinople of 381, under the name of which also appeared three (or
seven) other canons of a later date. Towards the same date, also, the
so-called "Apostolic Canons" were placed at the head of the group. Such
was the condition of the Greek collection when it was translated and
introduced into the West.
Its final form.
In the course of the 6th century the collection was completed by the
addition of documents already in existence, but which had hitherto
remained isolated, notably the canonical letters of several great
bishops, Dionysius of Alexandria, St Basil and others. It was at this
time that the Latin collection of Dionysius Exiguus became known; and
just as he had given the Greek councils a place in his collection, so
from him were borrowed the canons of councils which did not appear in
the Greek collection--the twenty canons of Sardica (343), in the Greek
text, which differs considerably from the Latin; and the council of
Carthage of 410, which itself included, more or less completely, in 105
canons, the decisions of the African councils. Soon after came the
council _in Trullo_ (692), also called the _Quinisextum_, because it was
considered as complementary to the two councils (5th and 6th ecumenical)
of Constantinople (553 and 680), which had not made any disciplinary
canons. This assembly elaborated 102 canons, which did not become part
of the Western law till much later, on the initiative of Pope John VIII.
(872-881). Now, in the second of its canons, the council in Trullo
recognized and sanctioned the Greek collection above mentioned; it
enumerates all its articles, insists on the recognition of these canons,
and at the same time prohibits the addition of others. As thus defined,
the collection contains the following documents: firstly, the
eighty-five Apostolic Canons, the Constitutions having been put aside as
having suffered heretical alterations; secondly, the canons of the
councils of Nicaea, Ancyra, Neocaesarea, Gangra, Antioch, Laodicea,
Constantinople (381), Ephesus (the disciplinary canons of this council
deal with the reception of the Nestorians, and were not communicated to
the West), Chalcedon, Sardica, Carthage (that of 419, according to
Dionysius), Constantinople (394); thirdly, the series of canonical
letters of the following great bishops--Dionysius of Alexandria, Peter
of Alexandria (the Martyr), Gregory Thaumaturgus, Athanasius, Basil,
Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, Amphilochus of Iconium,
Timotheus of Alexandria, Theophilus of Alexandria, Cyril of Alexandria,
Gennadius of Constantinople; the canon of Cyprian of Carthage (the
Martyr) is also mentioned, but with the note that it is only valid for
Africa. With the addition of the twenty-two canons of the ecumenical
council of Nicaea (787), this will give us the whole contents of the
official collection of the Greek Church; since then it has remained
unchanged. The law of the Greek Church was in reality rather the work of
the Byzantine emperors.[4]
Nomocanon.
The collection has had several commentators; we need only mention the
commentaries of Photius (883), Zonaras (1120) and Balsamon (1170). A
collection in which the texts are simply reproduced in their
chronological order is obviously inconvenient; towards 550, Johannes
Scholasticus, patriarch of Constantinople, drew up a methodical
classification of them under fifty heads. Finally should be mentioned
yet another kind of compilation still in use in the Greek Church,
bearing the name of _nomocanon_, because in them are inserted, side by
side with the ecclesiastical canons, the imperial laws on each subject:
the chief of them are the one bearing the name of Johannes Scholasticus,
which belongs, however, to a later date, and that of Photius (883).
In the West.
The canon law of the other Eastern Churches had no marked influence on
the collections of the Western Church, so we need not speak of it here.
While, from the 5th century onwards a certain unification in the
ecclesiastical law began to take place within the sphere of the see of
Constantinople, it was not till later that a similar result was arrived
at in the West. For several centuries there is no mention of any but
local collections of canons, and even these are not found till the 5th
century; we have to come down to the 8th or even the 9th century before
we find any trace of unification. This process was uniformly the result
of the passing on of the various collections from one region to another.
Africa.
The most remarkable, and the most homogeneous, as well as without doubt
the most ancient of these local collections is that of the Church of
Africa. It was formed, so to speak, automatically, owing to the plenary
assemblies of the African episcopate held practically every year, at
which it was customary first of all to read out the canons of the
previous councils. This gave to the collection an official character. At
the time of the Vandal invasion this collection comprised the canons of
the council of Carthage under Gratus (about 348) and under Genethlius
(390), the whole series of the twenty or twenty-two plenary councils
held during the episcopate of Aurelius, and finally, those of the
councils held at Byzacene. Of the last-named we have only fragments, and
the series of the councils under Aurelius is very incomplete. The
African collection has not come to us directly: we have two incomplete
and confused arrangements of it, in two collections, that of the
_Hispana_ and that of Dionysius Exiguus. Dionysius knows only the
council of 419, in connexion with the affair of Apiarius; but in this
single text are reproduced, more or less fully, almost all the synods of
the collection; this was the celebrated _Concilium Africanum_, so often
quoted in the middle ages, which was also recognized by the Greeks. The
Spanish collection divides the African canons among seven councils of
Carthage and one of Mileve; but in many cases it ascribes them to the
wrong source; for example, it gives under the title of the fourth
council of Carthage, the _Statuta Ecclesiae antiqua_, an Arlesian
compilation of Saint Caesarius, which has led to a number of incorrect
references. Towards the middle of the 6th century a Carthaginian deacon,
Fulgentius Ferrandus, drew up a _Breviatio canonum_,[5] a methodical
arrangement of the African collection, in the order of the subjects.
From it we learn that the canons of Nicaea and the other Greek councils,
up to that of Chalcedon, were also known in Africa.
Rome.
Dionysius Exiguus and his collection.
Dionysio-Hadriana.
The Roman Church, even more than the rest, governed itself according to
its own customs and traditions. Up to the end of the 5th century the
only canonical document of non-Roman origin which it officially
recognized was the group of canons of Nicaea, under which name were also
included those of Sardica. A Latin version of the other Greek councils
(the one referred to by Dionysius as _prisca_) was known, but no
canonical use was made of it. The local law was founded on usage and on
the papal letters called decretals. The latter were of two kinds: some
were addressed to the bishops of the ecclesiastical province immediately
subject to the pope; the others were issued in answer to questions
submitted from various quarters; but in both cases the doctrine is the
same. At the beginning of the 6th century the Roman Church adopted the
double collection, though of private origin, which was drawn up at that
time by the monk Dionysius, known by the name of Dionysius Exiguus,
which he himself had assumed as a sign of humility. He was a Scythian by
birth, and did not come to Rome till after 496, his learning was
considerable for his times, and to him we owe the employment of the
Christian era and a new way of reckoning Easter. At the desire of
Stephen, bishop of Salona, he undertook the task of making a new
translation, from the original Greek text, of the canons of the Greek
collection. The manuscript which he used contained only the first fifty
of the Apostolic Canons; these he translated, and they thus became part
of the law of the West. This part of the work of Dionysius was not added
to later; it was otherwise with the second part. This embodied the
documents containing the local law, namely 39 decretals of the popes
from Siricius (384-398) to Anastasius II. (496-498). As was natural this
collection received successive additions as further decretals appeared.
The collection formed by combining these two parts remained the only
official code of the Roman Church until the labours undertaken in
consequence of the reforming movement in the 11th century. In 774 Pope
Adrian I. gave the twofold collection of the Scythian monk to the future
emperor Charlemagne as the canonical book of the Roman Church; this is
what is called the _Dionysio-Hadriana_. This was an important stage in
the history of the centralization of canon law; the collection was
officially received by the Frankish Church, imposed by the council of
Aix-la-Chapelle of 802, and from that time on was recognized and quoted
as the _liber canonum_. If we consider that the Church of Africa, which
had already suffered considerably from the Vandal invasion, was at this
period almost entirely destroyed by the Arabs, while the fate of Spain
was but little better, it is easy to see why the collection of Dionysius
became the code of almost the whole of the Western Church, with the
exception of the Anglo-Saxon countries; though here too it was known.
The other collections of canons, of Italian origin, compiled before the
10th century, are of importance on account of the documents which they
have preserved for us, but as they have not exercised any great
influence on the development of canon law, we may pass them over.
In Gaul.
Quesnel collection.
The Dionysio-Hadriana did not, when introduced into Gaul, take the place
of any other generally received collection of canons. In this country
the Church had not been centralized round a principal see which would
have produced unity in canon law as in other things; even the political
territorial divisions had been very unstable. The only canonical centre
of much activity was the Church of Arles, which exercised considerable
influence over the surrounding region in the 5th and 6th centuries. The
chief collection known throughout Gaul before the Dionysio-Hadriana was
the so-called collection of Quesnel, named after its first editor.[6] It
is a rich collection, though badly arranged, and contains 98
documents--Eastern and African canons and papal letters, but no Gallic
councils; so that it is not a collection of local law. We might expect
to find such a collection, in view of the numerous and important
councils held in Gaul, but their decisions remained scattered among a
great number of collections none of which had ever a wide circulation or
an official character.
Councils.
It would be impossible to enumerate here all the Gallic councils which
contributed towards the canon law of that country; we will mention only
the following:--Arles (314), of great importance; a number of councils
in the district of Arles, completed by the _Statuta Ecclesiae antiqua_
of St Caesarius;[7] the councils of the province of Tours; the
assemblies of the episcopate of the three kingdoms of the Visigoths at
Agde (506), of the Franks at Orleans (511), and of the Burgundians at
Epaone (517); several councils of the kingdoms of the Franks, chiefly at
Orleans; and finally, the synods of the middle of the 8th century, under
the influence of St Boniface. Evidently the impulse towards unity had to
come from without; it began with the alliance between the Carolingians
and the Papacy, and was accentuated by the recognition of the _liber
canonum_.
In Spain.
The Hispana.
In Spain the case, on the contrary, is that of a strong centralization
round the see of Toledo. Thus we find Spanish canon law embodied in a
collection which, though perhaps not official, was circulated and
received everywhere; this was the Spanish collection, the _Hispana_.[8]
The collection is well put together and includes almost all the
important canonical documents. In the first part are contained the
councils, arranged according to the regions in which they were held:
Greek councils, following a translation of Italian origin, but known by
the name of _Hispana_; African councils, Gallican councils and Spanish
councils. The latter, which form the local section, are further divided
into several classes: firstly, the synods held under the Roman empire,
the chief being that of Elvira[9] (c. 300); next the texts belonging to
the kingdom of the Suevi, after the conversion of these barbarians by St
Martin of Braga: these are, the two councils of Braga (563 and 572), and
a sort of free translation or adaptation of the canons of the Greek
councils, made by Martin of Braga; this is the document frequently
quoted in later days under the name of _Capitula Martini papae_;
thirdly, the decisions of the councils of the Visigothic Church, after
its conversion to Catholicism. Nearly all these councils were held at
Toledo, beginning with the great council of 589. The series continued up
to 694 and was only interrupted by the Mussulman invasion. Finally, the
second part of the _Hispana_ contains the papal decretals, as in the
collection of Dionysius.
From the middle of the 9th century this collection was to become even
more celebrated; for, as we know, it served as the basis for the famous
collection of the False Decretals.
Great Britain and Ireland.
The Churches of Great Britain and Ireland remained still longer outside
the centralizing movement. Their contribution towards the later system
of canon law consisted in two things: the Penitentials and the influence
of the Irish collection, the other sources of local law not having been
known to the predecessors of Gratian nor to Gratian himself.
Penitentials.
The Penitentials[10] are collections intended for the guidance of
confessors in estimating the penances to be imposed for various sins,
according to the discipline in force in the Anglo-Saxon countries. They
are all of Anglo-Saxon or Irish origin, and although certain of them
were compiled on the continent, under the influence of the island
missionaries, it seems quite certain that a Roman Penitential has never
existed.[11] They are, however, of difficult and uncertain ascription,
since the collections have been largely amended and remodelled as
practice required. Among the most important we may mention those bearing
the names of Vinnianus (d. 589), Gildas (d. 583), Theodore of Canterbury
(d. 690), the Venerable Bede (d. 735) and Egbert of York (732-767); the
Penitentials which are ascribed to St Columbanus, the founder of Luxeuil
and Bobbio (d. 615), and Cumean (Cumine Ailbha, abbot of Iona); in the
Prankish kingdom the most interesting work is the Penitential of
Halitgar, bishop of Cambrai[12] from 817 to 831. As penances had for a
long time been lightened, and the books used by confessors began to
consist more and more of instructions in the style of the later moral
theology (and this is already the case of the books of Halitgar and
Rhabanus Maurus), the canonical collections began to include a greater
or smaller number of the penitential canons.
Irish collection.
The Irish collection,[13] though it introduced no important documents
into the law of the Western Church, at least set canonists the example
of quoting passages from the Scriptures and the writings of the Fathers.
This collection seems to date from the 8th century; besides the usual
sources, the author has included several documents of local origin,
beginning with the pretended synod of St Patrick.
The false decretals.
Systematic collections.
In the very middle of the 9th century a much enlarged edition of the
_Hispana_ began to be circulated in France. To this rich collection the
author, who assumes the name of Isidore, the saintly bishop of Seville,
added a good number of apocryphal documents already existing, as well as
a series of letters ascribed to the popes of the earliest centuries,
from Clement to Silvester and Damasus inclusive, thus filling up the gap
before the decretal of Siricius, which is the first genuine one in the
collection. The other papal letters only rarely show signs of alteration
or falsification, and the text of the councils is entirely
respected.[14] From the same source and at the same date came two other
forged documents--firstly, a collection of Capitularies, in three books,
ascribed to a certain Benedict (Benedictus Levita),[15] a deacon of the
church of Mainz; this collection, in which authentic documents find very
little place, stands with regard to civil legislation exactly in the
position of the False Decretals with regard to canon law. The other
document, of more limited scope, is a group of _Capitula_ given under
the name of Angilram, bishop of Metz. It is nowadays admitted by all
that these three collections come from the same source. For a study of
the historical questions connected with the famous False Decretals, see
the article DECRETALS (FALSE); here we have only to consider them with
reference to the place they occupy in the formation of ecclesiastical
law. In spite of some hesitation, with regard rather to the official
character than to the historical authenticity of the letters attributed
to the popes of the earlier centuries, the False Decretals were accepted
with confidence, together with the authentic texts which served as a
passport for them. All later collections availed themselves
indiscriminately of the contents of this vast collection, whether
authentic or forged, without the least suspicion. The False Decretals
did not greatly modify nor corrupt the Canon Law, but they contributed
much to accelerate its progress towards unity. For they were the last of
the chronological collections, i.e. those which give the texts in the
order in which they appeared. From this time on, canonists began to
exercise their individual judgment in arranging their collections
according to some systematic order, grouping their materials under
divisions more or less happy, according to the object they had in view.
This was the beginning of a codification of a common canon law, in which
the sources drawn upon lose, as it were, their local character. This is
made even more noticeable by the fact that, in a good number of the
works extant, the author is not content merely to set forth and classify
the texts; but he proceeds to discuss the point, drawing conclusions and
sometimes outlining some controversy on the subject, just as Gratian was
to do more fully later on.
Regino.
Burchard.
Anselm Deusdedit.
Ivo of Chartres.
During this period, which extended from the end of the 9th century to
the middle of the 12th, we can enumerate about forty systematic
collections, of varying value and circulation, which all played a
greater or lesser part in preparing the juridical renaissance of the
12th century, and most of which were utilized by Gratian. We need
mention only the chief of them--the _Collectio Anselmo dedicata_, by an
unknown author of the end of the 9th century; the _Libri duo de
synodalibus causis et disciplinis ecclesiasticis_,[16] compiled about
906 by Regino, abbot of Prum, and dedicated to Hatto of Mainz,
relatively a very original treatise; the enormous compilation in twenty
books of Burchard, bishop of Worms (1112-1122), the _Decretum_ or
_Collectarium_,[17] very widely spread and known under the name of
_Brocardum_, of which the 19th book, dealing with the process of
confession, is specially noteworthy. Towards the end of the 11th
century, under the influence of Hildebrand, the reforming movement
makes itself felt in several collections of canons, intended to support
the rights of the Holy See and the Church against the pretensions of the
emperor. To this group belong an anonymous collection, described by M.P.
Fournier as the first manual of the Reform;[18] the collection of
Anselm, bishop of Lucca,[19] in 13 books (1080-1086); that of Cardinal
Deusdedit,[20] in 4 books, dedicated to Pope Victor III. (1086-1087);
and lastly that of Bonizo,[21] bishop of Sutri, in 10 books (1089). In
the 12th century, the canonical works of Ivo of Chartres[22] are of
great importance. His _Panormia_, compiled about 1095 or 1096, is a
handy and well-arranged collection in 8 books; as to the _Decretum_, a
weighty compilation in 17 books, there seems sufficient proof that it is
a collection of material made by Ivo in view of his _Panormia_. To the
12th century belong the collection in the MS. of Saragossa
(_Caesaraugustana_) to which attention was drawn by Antonio Agustin;
that of Cardinal Gregory, called by him the _Polycarpus_, in 8 books
(about 1115); and finally the _Liber de misericordia et justitia_ of
Algerus,[23] scholasticus of Liege, in 3 books, compiled at latest in
1123.
But all these works were to be superseded by the _Decretum_ of Gratian.
The Decretum of Gratian.
2. _The Decretum of Gratian and the Corpus Juris Canonici._--The work of
Gratian, though prepared and made possible by those of his predecessors,
greatly surpasses them in scientific value and in magnitude. It is
certainly the work which had the greatest influence on the formation of
canon law; it soon became the sole manual, both for teaching and for
practice, and even after the publication of the Decretals was the chief
authority in the universities. The work is not without its faults;
Gratian is lacking in historical and critical faculty; his theories are
often hesitating; but on the whole, his treatise is as complete and as
perfect as it could be; so much so that no other work of the same kind
has been compiled; just as there has never been made another Book of the
Sentences. These two works, which were almost contemporary (Gratian is
only about two years earlier),[24] were destined to have the same fate;
they were the manuals, one for theology, the other for canon law, in use
in all the universities, taught, glossed and commented on by the most
illustrious masters. From this period dates the more marked and
definitive separation between theology and ecclesiastical law.
Dicta Gratiani.
Contents.
Mode of citation.
Of Gratian we know practically nothing. He was a Camaldulensian monk of
the convent of St Felix at Bologna, where he taught canon law, and
published, probably in 1148, his treatise called at first _Concordantia
discordantium canonum_, but soon known under the name of the _Decretum_.
Nowadays, and for some time past, the only part of the _Decretum_
considered is the collection of texts; but it is actually a treatise, in
which the author endeavours to piece together a coherent juridical
system from the vast body of texts, of widely differing periods and
origin, which are furnished by the collections. These texts he inserts
bodily in the course of his dissertation; where they do not agree, he
divides them into opposite groups and endeavours to reconcile them; but
the really original part of his work are the _Dicta Gratiani_, inserted
between the texts, which are still read. Gratian drew his materials from
the existing collections, and especially from the richer of them; when
necessary, he has recourse to the Roman laws, and he made an extensive
use of the works of the Fathers and the ecclesiastical writers; he
further made use of the canons of the recent councils, and the recently
published decretals, up to and including the Lateran council of 1139.
His immense work consists of three parts (_partes_). The first, treating
of the sources of canon law and of ecclesiastical persons and offices,
is divided according to the method of Paucapalea, Gratian's pupil, into
101 _distinctiones_, which are subdivided into _canones_. The second
part consists of 36 _causae_ (cases proposed for solution), subdivided
into _quaestiones_ (the several questions raised by the case), under
each of which are arranged the various _canones_ (canons, decretals,
&c.) bearing on the question. But _causa_ xxxiii. _quaestio_ 3, headed
_Tractatus de Poenitentia_, is divided like the main part into seven
_distinctiones_, containing each several _canones_. The third part,
which is entitled _De Consecratione_, gives, in five _distinctiones_,
the law bearing on church ritual and the sacraments. The following is
the method of citation. A reference to the first part indicates the
initial words or number of the _canon_ and the number of the
_distinctio_, e.g. can. Propter ecclesiasticas, dist. xviii. or c. 15,
d. xviii. The second part is cited by the _canon, causa_ and _quaestio_,
e.g. can. Si quis suadente, C. 17, qu. 4, or c. 29, C. xvii., qu. 4. The
treatise _De Poenitentia_, forming the 3rd _quaestio_ of the 33rd
_causa_ of the second part, is referred to as if it were a separate
work, e.g. c. Principium, D. ii. de poenit. or c. 45, D. ii. de poenit.
In quoting a passage from the third part the _canon_ and _distinctio_
are given, e.g. c. Missar. solenn. D.I. de consecrat., or c. 12, D.I.
de consecr.
Authority.
Considered from the point of view of official authority, the _Decretum_
occupies an intermediate position very difficult to define. It is not
and cannot be a really official code, in which every text has the force
of a law. It has never been recognized as such, and the pretended
endorsement of it by Pope Eugenius III. is entirely apocryphal.
Moreover, it could not have become an official code; it would be
impossible to transform into so many laws either the discordant texts
which Gratian endeavoured to reconcile or his own _Dicta_; a treatise on
canon Law is not a code. Further, there was as yet no idea of demanding
an official compilation. The _Decretum_ has thus remained a work of
private authority, and the texts embodied in it have only that legal
value which they possess in themselves. On the other hand, the
_Decretum_ actually enjoys a certain public authority which is unique;
for centuries it has been the text on which has been founded the
instruction in canon law in all the universities; it has been glossed
and commented on by the most illustrious canonists; it has become,
without being a body of laws, the first part of the _Corpus juris
canonici_, and as such it has been cited, corrected and edited by the
popes. It has thus, by usage, obtained an authority perfectly recognized
and accepted by the Church.[25]
After Gratian.
Gratian's collection, for the very reason that it had for its aim the
creation of a systematic canon law, was a work of a transitional
character. Henceforth a significant differentiation began to appear; the
collections of texts, the number of which continued to increase, were
clearly separated from the commentaries in which the canonists continued
the formation and interpretation of the law. Thus the way was prepared
for official collections. The disciples of Gratian, in glossing or
commenting on the _Decretum_, turned to the papal decretals, as they
appeared, for information and the determination of doubtful points.
Their idea, then, was to make collections of these points, to support
their teaching; this is the origin of those _Compilationes_ which were
soon to be embodied in the collection of Gregory IX. But we must not
forget that these compilations were intended by their authors to
complete the _Decretum_ of Gratian; in them were included the decretals
called _extravagantes_, i.e. _quae vagabantur extra Decretum_. This is
why we find in them hardly any documents earlier than the time of
Gratian, and also why canonists have continued to refer to the
decretals of Gregory IX. by the abbreviation X (_Extra_, i.e. _extra
Decretum_).
"Quinque compilationes."