Summary
The printed editions of the Liber extra usually contain summaria, which are short summaries added to the source text providing the encapsulated ratio of each chapter. These short additions were mostly overlooked by the canonists and legal historians, and for this reason their history and relevance are not satisfactorily assessed. The study of incunabula shows that summaria were taken mostly from the Commentaria of Niccolò de Tudeschi, however his summaries were usually founded on the earlier commentaries to the Liber extra. Summaria were first introduced to the printed Liber extra in 1489 by Girolamo Chiari in the edition of the Venetian printer Battista Torti. This innovation was immediately adopted by other printers who expressly signalled the addition of summaria to attract the attention of students and other potential purchasers. The other redaction of summaria was prepared by Jean Chappuis for the edition of the Liber extra in 1501, and both redactions were inserted in the editio Romana of 1582, either in the centre or in the margins. Summaria were reiterated in almost all editions starting from the edition of Torti from 1489 up to the edition of Friedberg in 1881. The scarce scholarly accounts on the significance of summaria claim only that they were lacking authoritative value but should be treated as interpretative, didactic or epistemic tools for a better understanding of the Liber extra and accompanying the history of canon law jurisprudence.
1 Overlooked innovation
The medieval canon law jurisprudence developed many approaches to the sources of canon law to understand their significance and to use them for creating various new doctrines. Among such approaches or tools we can count for example glossae or casus, which were founded directly on the source texts, as well as distinctiones, lecturae or commentaria, which were at times loosely connected with the sources and enabled the canonists to investigate any issues linked to the core texts. There were also more technical instruments which indicated how the sources were interpreted or how they should be interpreted, and among them we can count the formal structure of the sources (the very arrangement of the texts within a compilation), the modification of the contents of the sources themselves (partes decisae in the Liber extra) or the additions to the sources, which are easily passed over, yet they carry some interpretative relevance. To the latter we can assign inter alia the rubrics, inscriptions and summaries in the Decretals of Gregory IX1.
Here our focus will be on the summaria in the Liber extra. It is sometimes erroneously claimed that the year 1234, i.e., the year in which the Decretals were promulgated, was the year when summaria were first introduced2. Such assertions are however far from being correct, because there were no summaria in the Liber extra, as it was prepared by Raymund of Peñafort, and this fact encourages our investigation on the history of summaria. It appears that their history has not yet been written and that this issue falls outside the scope of interest of the historians of canon law. Additionally – and this will be shown to be an important remark for the history of summaria – the incunabula of the Liber extra are also still waiting for a proper scholarly account. As E.A. Reno notes ‘[f]ar from being a dry narrative of texts, shelf marks and variants, the account of the Decretals’ transmission in the age of Gutenberg is worth telling for its own sake’3. We can name but a few reasons for this unfortunate omission: the apparently limited relevance of this issue to studies of the contents and usage of the Decretales, the focus on the origins of the Decretals rather than on the history of their editions, and ‘the conviction that early printed editions are effectively interchangeable’4.
The investigation of the history of summaria in the printed editions of the Decretals will be the first objective of our study. This is a topic worth researching, since for centuries these short sentences shaped the basic perception of every single canon from the Liber extra. The second objective will be a brief examination of the scarce scholarly accounts on the normative significance of summaria. We will begin, however, with a short clarification on the terminology to avoid any initial misapprehension of the subject of our study.
2 What is a summarium?
Before delving into the details it is justified to provide a basic terminological clarification for the issue at hand as the word summarium may refer to various elements of legal sources. First, we should note precisely which part of the edited Liber extra were summaria. This may be clearly explained on the basis of two pages from the classical editio Romana from 1582, e.g. when we look at X 1,2,1 (col. 14-15) which was the first standard legal chapter in the Decretals. Nevertheless, we should keep in mind that every edition of the Liber extra was slightly different but this edition is still widely used as a classical one so we can use it as a point of reference here and only later move to the examination of incunabula.
X 1,2,1, editio Romana 1582, UCLA Library, Charles E. Young Research Library, Library Special Collection, KBR1565 1582
Citation: Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis / Revue d'histoire du droit / The Legal History Review 90, 1-2 (2022) ; 10.1163/15718190-20220010
Electronic Edition: UCLA Digital Library ProgramThis edition reflects the layout which was introduced as early as 1460 to imitate the manuscripts with the commentary surrounding the main body of the text, and which was called at this time modus modernus5. It is also known as the ‘agora template’ of page layout, i.e. typical for the placement in medieval manuscripts of the authoritative source text in the centre and the annotation to the source in the margins6. In case of X 1,2,1 in the centre there are rubricae – these are (traditionally printed in red): the title’s number (Titulus II), the title’s heading (De constitutionibus) and the number of chapter or canon (Cap. I). Then there is the inscription (superscriptio), i.e. the notice on the source of the canon from which it was reiterated in the Liber extra (Ex concilio Meldensi). Next, there is the summarium, i.e. a short sentence in black italics which describes the core of the following capitulum (Iuris canonici statuta omnes ligant etc. – all of the above-mentioned elements were given in col. 14). The last important element is the incipit (Canonum), the first word or words of the capitulum, which is not always visually marked but is an important element to notice as it was part of the medieval and early modern referencing system to provide the name of the title and the incipit of the capitulum. Usually all these elements are taken for granted and do not attract the attention of legal historians, but they were not all incorporated by Raymund in the promulgated edition of the Liber extra7. The element which was added later was the summarium and these summaria placed as part of the source texts in the centre will be the subject of our study.
In the majority of the editions of the Liber extra, as in the editio Romana for example, there are also added in the marginal columns the annotations to the sources in accordance with the modus modernus. Interestingly, the first part of the latter (at the top of col. 15) reiterates the other summarium to X 1,2,1 (Constitutiones canonum ab omnibus sunt servandae) which was taken from Giovanni d’Andrea. Apart from it there are in the margins the outcomes of the early jurisprudential reception of the Liber extra, which usually contains a note on the title (i.e. commentary ad rubricam), and on each capitulum there is yet another summary (communes divisiones – the brief description of contents), casus and Glossa ordinaria. These are supplemented by later commentaries, either between glosses from the Ordinary Gloss (in the editio Romana these are passages added in italics) or in the additional margins.
Second caveat is that we will not be discussing here summaria understood as added by the editors’ tables of contents present in the majority of medieval legal sources printed in the early modern era. This kind of lists of contents are not present in the editions of the Liber extra and we should not confuse them with various kinds of indexes added to the sources editions. The role of the summaria adopted in tables of contents is also an interesting example of the influence of the editors on the perception of the sources themselves, and this may require a proper scholarly account. These summaria were also an innovation of the editors and they made printed books more user-friendly8. Neither will we examine in detail the specific legal genre of ‘pragmatic writings’ named summaria (or other synonyms of epitome)9, as we will be focusing on the printed Liber extra for the reasons explained below.
3 The history of printed summaria
3.1 The author
Before determining when summaria were added to the Decretals it is natural to ask who the original author of the summaria was. As we shall see, this was the point that interested both editors and scholars. There are at least two possible perspectives from which to approach this question. The first aims at the broader picture and takes into account the growth of the jurisprudential apparatus in the legal collections in the Middle Ages. Summaria might have grown from the shortened versions of the casus to particular chapters of the corpora iuris. As such they were introduced as early as in the 12th century10 and in the 13th century they were already very popular and were edited both as additions to the source text as well as separate collections, e.g. Casus summarii Decretalium11. These summaria were added in various places in the manuscripts – not as rubrics to the chapters but rather under the central columns or in the margins, and they were often marked by the words hoc dicit (abbreviated as h.d.)12. From the end of the 13th century the commentators of Justinian’s Digest and Code also began to insert in their commentaries the words hoc dicit to introduce short notes to the provisions which served as ‘ratio normativa’ or ‘principium scientifico’13. It was a brief expression of the most relevant content of the provision commented upon, i.e. its very ratio. This practice was gradually adopted as a standard part of the commentary in both laws. It was soon called summarium which – as Andrea Padovani put it – ‘ha lo scopo di esprimere la ratio della norma giustinianea’ or with regard to canon law we would say ‘norma canonica’14. Summaria in this first perspective were part of the standard jurisprudential tools of the medieval canonists and legists and they were developing and evolving through their transmissions and additions to the sources. The study of their history and handwritten tradition goes far beyond the scope of this paper.
The second perspective focuses on the summaria to the Decretals, as the summaria since the invention of print have been most commonly acknowledged from these editions. Their history may be briefly addressed as it was the Commentaria of Niccolò de Tudeschi (also known as Panormitanus) which served as the major source of the summaria to the Liber extra. A brief inquiry shows that the majority of the printed summaria to the Liber extra were taken from his work. To mention just one short example, we can look at the summarium to X 2,21,6 where Panormitanus’ disagreement with the typical way of summarizing this canon is copied15. The structure of Commentaria eased the extraction of summaries as the commentary to each chapter opens with a summarium (often marked with h.d.)16. This also means that the summaria to the vast part of the first book of the Decretals were authored by earlier canonists, as Panormitanus did not write any commentary to many of these titles (X 1,7–X 1,28). A more comprehensive study is required to check the origin and transmission of every single summarium. The confirmation of the authorship of the summaria in the printed editions of the Decretals will need a detailed comparative analysis of various editions of the Liber extra and the Commentaria of Panormitanus, and if we also want to take into consideration the first perspective described above it will be highly desirable to see what the relation was between the summaria of Panormitanus and the earlier examples of casus and summaria to the Decretals.
3.2 The incunabula up to 1489
Summaria to canon law books appeared quite early, as they were introduced, e.g., to the printed editions of the decisiones of the Roman Rota17. However, for several years this was not the case with the Decretals. The preliminary research showed that it was somewhere around the turn of the 16th century that summaria appeared as a component of the early printed editions of the Decretals. It is highly probable that the summaria of Panormitanus were not present in the manuscripts of the Liber extra; however, to confirm this statement a broad archival inquiry will be required18. Pars pro toto we can say that the attempt to find summaria in the rare 15th century manuscripts failed19, especially taking into consideration that the number of manuscripts of the Liber extra produced after 1350 dropped off20. Our attention should therefore focus on the early printed editions of the Liber extra.
The selection of the most important incunabula was examined for the purpose of this research and hopefully it is possible to draw a line marking the new publishing invention based on the dataset examined21. There were no summaria in the following sample of early editions of the Liber extra22 :
This list which does not cover all incunabula up to 1489 is further proof that there were no summaria of Panormitanus in the late medieval manuscripts, as the printers would have probably reiterated this pattern after the late medieval handwritten source editions.
The innovation was first introduced to the printed Liber extra in the edition of Venice 1489 (ed. Battista Torti, Girolamo Chiari; GW 11479) and it was paralleled by the similar development in printing civil law books, as was recently proved by Maria Alessandra Panzanelli Fratoni23. Torti was at the time an established publisher with some experience in printing legal books, but it seems that the crucial factor that led to the addition of summaria was hiring Girolamo Chiari (Hieronymus Clarius Brixiensis) to prepare the new editions of legal books, the Liber extra included. The enrichment of the source texts with new paratexts was manifested inter alia by the addition of summaria to the respective volumes of corpora iuris. Panzanelli Fratoni listed the editions of civil law books of Torti and observed the improvement of the texts by paratexts from around 1490. With the edition of the Liber extra of 1489 we can slightly move the initial date of cooperation between Torti and Chiari back in time. We may also correct the statement of Johann Friedrich von Schulte, who listed four incunabula with summaria, the earliest of which, according to him, was the edition of Nürnberg 149324.
X 1,2,1, edition of Venice 1489 (ed. Battista Torti, Girolamo Chiari; GW 11479), Olomouc Research Library, III 47.718
Citation: Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis / Revue d'histoire du droit / The Legal History Review 90, 1-2 (2022) ; 10.1163/15718190-20220010
We know little about Chiari. He lived at the turn of the 16th century, came from Bedizzole (a riparian part of Brescia at Lago di Garda) and was appointed archpriest there. He was doctor of canon and civil law, apostolic protonotary and count Palatine. He probably authored the Casus breves Institutionum and he is best known for his editing of numerous legal books, at least from the 1480s to 1520s25. He was not involved in the preparation of the former edition of Torti (Venice 1486; GW 11474)* and we can learn about his work from the colophon to the edition of Venice 1489 – this edition of the Liber extra was considered by some to be his major achievement26.
Torti noted in the colophon that this edition of the Liber extra was supplemented by argumenta singulis decretalibus addita by Girolamo Chiari and provided us with some biographical details of the editor. Chiari took these argumenta from his copy of the Decretals, which he annotated while he was a scholar in Bologna, and his master was Andrea Barbazza (Andreas Siculus, Andreas Barbatius, c.1400–1479)27. The argumenta mentioned in the colophon are nothing other than the summaria we are looking for. This is a very informative account on the history of summaria, as from the edition of Torti and this short colophon we can learn that it was the innovation of Chiari to add summaria to the printed Liber extra, that he prepared summaria for the printing house of Torti and that he took them from his earlier notes which were somehow influenced by the well-known 15th century canonist Barbazza. There is also a stunning link between the late medieval jurisprudential apparatus to the source texts, the formative influence of the law teacher on his student, and the development of early printed law books. It seems that particularly important for the latter was the close cooperation between the printer and the editor, which brought a new quality to the printed legal books. As we will see, the influence of Chiari and eventually even Barbazza on the shape of summaria was very soon forgotten and the credits went solely to Panormitanus, but this point will require further investigation by taking into account the Commentaria of Panormitanus, various works of Barbazza and the summaria in the edition of Torti from 1489.
3.3 The incunabula from the 1490s
There were no editions of the Liber extra in 1490 and in the 1490s we can see that the presence of the summaria in the printed Decretals changed instantly. The list of incunabula with summaria from the 1490s (only the first edition of the respective printer is listed – for this reason Torti appears again, but his following editions were omitted) includes:
Summaria were also included as a paratext by the printers, who initially did not add them to their incunabula, as was the case with the editions of Ulrich Gering, Andrea Torresano and Johann Siber (and earlier of course of Battista Torti). However, it was not a uniform trend as we can notice e.g. in the editions of Peter Drach, who did not implement summaria either in the edition from 1486 or in the edition of Speyer 1492 (GW 11486). Once summaria were added, they were retained in the later incunabula of the same editor. The innovation in the printing art of the Decretals did not fully supersede the editions without summaria but with time it became the ordinary way of presenting the Liber extra to readers.
X 1,2,1, edition of Paris 1499 (ed. Ulrich Gering, Berthold Rembolt, Vitalis de Thebes, Sebastian Brant, Jean Chappuis; GW 11496), Basel University Library, Nn III 10
Citation: Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis / Revue d'histoire du droit / The Legal History Review 90, 1-2 (2022) ; 10.1163/15718190-20220010
What may attract our attention is how the printers of these ten editions introduced readers to the novum added to their incunabula. Only in the two last editions from the list there was no mention of the novel addition at all. However, in the edition of Siber it was mentioned in the following edition from the same year. In the edition of Paris 1499, which was the famous first edition prepared by the canonists Vitalis de Thebes and Jean Chappuis, summaria were not mentioned in the title, in the long dedication letter from Vitalis de Thebes to Berthold Rembolt, or in the foreword to the reader. In all the remaining editions of the Decretals with summaria from the list above, the printers described this novel addition in various ways. The editions of Hamann28 and Du Pré29 noted summaria only in the colophon, and the wording suggests that they probably reprinted the earlier edition of Torti of 1489. Similarly brief in this regard were the editions of Andrea di Calabria (probably the first edition which implemented Bernard’s casus)30 and Wenssler31, however, the latter put this information in the title instead of the colophon.
Slightly different were the editions of Torti and Koberger (the latter following almost verbatim the former), where apart from the title of the work32 there was added also a more elaborate note on the contents of the work, informing readers that this edition was enriched by the lucubrationes and corrections of Chiari. Other paratexts are also mentioned: summulae, divisiones,
continuationes rubricarum and even casus. It is also clearly stated that this novel inclusion of summulae for each decretal was meant for the students’ convenience33. We can therefore see that Torti addressed the reader right at the beginning of his book (instead of at its end – as in the edition of 1489), shortened the information on Chiari and wanted clearly to attract the reader by listing the novel and reiterated paratexts. Only in the edition of Du Pré was the editorial work of Chiari also mentioned34, so it seems that other editors did not find it necessary to link the addition of summaria with Chiari (this is especially surprising in the edition of Hamann, which was probably reprinted after Torti).
Much longer references to summaria were present in the forewords to the edition of Brant and Froben35 and the edition of Torresano. Interestingly, in both of these editions there was neither a direct mention of summaria in their titles nor any reference to Chiari. The foreword of Torresano followed the foreword of Brant and Froben verbatim so it is justified to focus solely on the edition of the latter. Summaria were mentioned there three times. The editors described, with references to Quintilian and Seneca, the virtue of memoria and expressed in the foreword how the formal structure of their book would help the reader to master the expertise in the Decretals. According to them, memory is supported by three elements: lectionis frequentia, lectorum intelligentia and intellectorum retinentia. The second one may be reached via two factors, namely by the proper arrangement and by summaria, or a brief presentation of each chapter36. Later, the editors listed other formal characteristics of
their edition, such as summaries of each book and title, denotation of single chapters and the summary casus37. Even though the word summaria appeared twice in this section, it seems that it was referring to other paratexts than the one we are examining. Finally, the editors stressed that summaria were added to facilitate frequent reading and contemplation over the Liber extra38. The characterisation, given by Brant and Froben (and copied later by Torresano), of the significance of summaria for the comprehension of the Decretals proves clearly that this editorial novelty was meant to attract clients, including students, academic teachers and legal practitioners.
Eight out of ten of the first editions of each printer of the Decretals from the 1490s, listed above and containing summaria, show that it was a consciously made choice on the part of the publishers. They tried to emphasise this innovation in various ways through the book’s titles, the forewords or the colophons to increase the additional assets of their editions of the Liber extra, along with other editorial adjustments, such as references to the Sacred Scripture, other paratexts or indexes. Interestingly, in these earliest editions of the Liber extra with summaria there was no mention on the origins of this novelty, i.e., on the original author of these short passages (a point upon which we will touch below). It was only in the edition of Lyon 1499 (ed. Johann Siber; GW 11500)* that it was mentioned for the first time, in the colophon, that summaria had been taken from Panormitanus39.
X 1,2,1, edition of Venice 1499 (ed. Battista Torti, Girolamo Chiari; GW 11497), University Library Eichstätt-Ingolstadt, 132/1 D II 10
Citation: Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis / Revue d'histoire du droit / The Legal History Review 90, 1-2 (2022) ; 10.1163/15718190-20220010
The first decade of the implementation of summaria to the printed Liber extra witnessed constant adjustments of these summaries. In the second edition of Torti and Chiari (Venice 1491) in the margins there were added other variants of summaria probably excerpted from the Commentaria of Panormitanus. This approach was echoed at least in the following editions from the list above: Venice 1492, Nürnberg 1493, Basel 1494, Venice 1498, Paris 1499. Interestingly, the original approach (one summarium in the centre of the page, no summaria in the margins) was preferred in the edition Lyon c. 1499. Chiari did not cease to enrich the scholarly apparatus for his editions of the Decretals and in the edition of Venice 1499 (ed. Battista Torti, Girolamo Chiari; GW 11497) he presented what was probably the most expanded edition of summaria. On the verso of the first leaf of this imprint before the description of the contents of the Decretals, as in the previous editions, there was added a new note which clearly stated that this edition was enriched with summaria seu intellectus written by Andrea Barbazza and recently excerpted from his writings by his pupil, Ludovico Bolognini40. It is not entirely clear whether Bolognini prepared these summaria for this edition or his work was simply reiterated in this edition. Nevertheless, the outcome was exceptional: in this incunable the reader could find summaria as in the edition of 1489 added to the main source text, the other variants of summaria as added in the edition of 1491 in the margins, and even supplementary summaria by Andrea Barbazza also included in the margins. This innovation was not repeated in the following edition of Venice 1500 (ed. Battista Torti, Girolamo Chiari; GW 11501) but it proves two things. First, there was a vital development of legal incunabula in the 15th century, and second, summaria were considered by the editors and printers to be an important part of their editorial endeavours as they devoted a lot of effort to refine the quality of these summaries.
3.4 The editions from the 16th–19th centuries
The huge amount of various editions of Liber extra in the following centuries allows us to present only selected imprints for brief investigation. Summaria were kept in the second edition of the Decretals edited by Jean Chappuis and Vitalis de Thebes in Paris 1501 (ed. Ulrich Gering, Berthold Rembolt, Vitalis de Thebes, Sebastian Brant, Jean Chappuis). In comparison to the edition of 1499, we should stress that the summaria in the edition of 1501 regularly offered to numerous chapters of the Decretals the summaries different from those authored by Chiari in 1489. When we study the Parisian editions of 1499 and 1501, we can see that the editors simply shifted some summaria from the margins to the centre and from the centre to the margins. In the list of contents of Decretalium copiosum argumentum from 1501 it was clearly stated that summaria Panormitani used to be added in the most childish way, in a gloss or directly to the source texts, but in this edition they were added above the main text for the sake of adequacy41. In the editor’s foreword of Vitalis de Thebes, summaria were not mentioned; neither were they in the following acrostic of Jean Chappuis. The useful information given in this edition is the direct attribution of summaria to Panormitanus. It was this new arrangement of summaria that was the most influential impact of the 1501 edition as the summaria from this edition were reiterated in the most relevant later editions of Liber extra. A detailed investigation will be needed to establish a relation between summaria from the redactions of Chiari and Chappuis, and Commentaria of Panormitanus.
The later edition of Decretalium copiosum argumentum of Lyon 1515 (ed. François Fradin, Berthold Rembolt, Vitalis de Thebes) was arranged differently to the one from 1501 (e.g., the index of capitula and glossae were moved to the end) and the description of the addition of summaria was slightly shorter42. Summaria were also introduced in another early 16th-century Parisian edition – Paris 1507 (ed. Jean Chappuis, Thielmann Kerver, Jean Petit, Jean Cabiller). They were similarly addressed in the contents of the book, but the description was even briefer43. However, this edition also reiterated the foreword on memoria (as present in the edition of Brant and Froben and the edition of Torresano) and contained the information on summaria in the colophon. The Decretals published in Lyon 1513 (ed. Jaques Maillet, Stephane Balland, Jean Chappuis) noted summaria only in the contents. In the edition of Paris 1529 (ed. Jean Thierry, Jean Petit, Andrée Boucard) – which first introduced the ancient letters of the popes and the martyrs preceding the Liber extra – summaria were listed in the contents and in the colophon. An untypical edition from Paris of 1537 (ed. Claude Chevallon) contains summaria and does not contain glossae. Nevertheless, the editor did not provide any justification for adopting the summaria. It seems that it was somewhere between these two editions, i.e., between 1529 and 1537, that this informative custom of listing contents and providing even a short notice on summaria was abandoned. This observation also corresponds with the fact that the year 1500 is a rather artificial date for a sharp cut-off delineation for the incunabula among the early printed books44. This single case study shows that certain printing patterns were maintained for much longer and that this threshold should be reconsidered. However, in the edition of Paris 1547 (ed. Yolande Bonhomme, Jean Thierry) summaria were listed in the colophon but this may be explained by the fact that this famous female printer took over the publishing house from her late husband, Thielmann Kerver (who had started the publishing of the Liber extra at least forty years earlier).
All the most significant later editions of the Decretals incorporated summaria as a natural element of the scholarly apparatus which accompanied the compiled canons. We can find them e.g., in Antoine Le Conte’s edition (Paris 157045 ), in the editio Romana of 1582 (in the centre they were taken from Chappuis and in the margins they were taken from the earlier variants), in the editions of Pierre and François Pithou (Paris 1687), Justus Henning Böhmer (Halle 1747), Emil Ludwig Richter (Leipzig 1839) and Emil Albert Friedberg (Leipzig 1881). Probably the universality of this editorial practice led to the fact that the history and relevance of summaria were largely ignored by canon lawyers and legal historians. These editors did not provide any justification for adding summaria to their editions, which is especially surprising for the edition of Böhmer, where a long introduction was provided46. The 19th century saw two important editions of the Liber extra, but the first one, undertaken by Emil Ludwig Richter (1839), does not contain any introduction discussing the history of the Corpus iuris canonici, and in the arguably most important edition of the Liber extra, i.e. the one by Emil Albert Friedberg (Leipzig 1881) we can find some introductory notes concerning the various editions of the Liber extra and the edition of Friedberg, but it seems that summaria were not addressed here either. What is again puzzling is the apparent incongruity, since all these listed editions from 1570 to 1881 contain summaria and none of them make any effort to justify the inclusion of summaria to the source text, while some of them were openly aiming at the presentation of the original source texts without the distraction of any jurisprudential additions.
To summarise, we claim that summaria first developed in jurisprudence, as part of the commentaries to provisions (leges) and canons. Then they were taken from the Commentaria of Panormitanus (supplemented with the earlier canonists) and inserted into the editions of the Liber extra from 1489 onwards, thanks to the cooperation between the printer (Battista Torti) and the editor (Girolamo Chiari). In fact, only a few editions after 1489 did not contain summaria. Summaria were introduced by the printers as a novelty for the sake of the readers’ convenience, in particular to support learning the contents of the Decretals. The summaries were given various names in these first editions: argumenta singulis decretalibus addita, lucubrationes, summulae, intellectus and – most commonly – summaria. After 1550 the editors did not bother with providing any justification for reiterating summaria – they were taken for granted.
What should be stressed is that from these clarifications new and more specific questions arise, concerning the very contents of summaria and the number of their redactions. It seems that over the centuries of their development there were several versions of summaria. First, there were summaria or summaries of casus developed in the manuscript tradition. The summaria of Panormitanus were the most relevant for printed editions of the Liber extra, but they were preceded by earlier scholarly works. Second, there were summaria in the early printed editions of the Decretals, which were presumably all taken directly from Panormitanus (or from the earlier canonists, usually from Giovanni d’Andrea, when there was a gap in Panormitanus’ Commentaria), but they might have been influenced by the teaching customs from Bologna (Andrea Barbazza and Girolamo Chiari). These summaria were reiterated by the first printers, from 1489 to 1500, and only from the edition of Chappuis in 1501 can we see significant alterations in summaria. Third, there were summaria from the editio Romana which probably served as a source for summaries in the later editions of the Liber extra and were certainly a source of the summaria for the edition of Friedberg in 1881. These summaria were probably reiterated after the edition of Chappuis in 1501, but in the margins there were preserved the alternative summaria following earlier variants of the summaries. All these claims are preliminary and will require thorough analysis with comparisons of the shape of each summarium to the respective books or titles of the Decretals, and for this reason these questions fall outside the scope of this introductory paper47.
4 The scholarly accounts on the significance of summaria
The account on the history of summaria enables us to pose more relevant questions concerning their general significance. As an addition to the source text which was promulgated by the pope and was an authoritative source of legal norms, summaria have a more complicated nature and we will try to highlight this by examination of jurisprudential evaluations of their normative value scattered between the 16th and 20th centuries. However, due to the fact that summaria were not added by Raymond of Penyafort himself, they usually fell outside of the scope of interest of legal historians studying the reception and transmission of the Liber extra. This is completely understandable as they were a much later addition, but the result is that only a few works from the vast canon law literature addressed the summaria. Nevertheless, from the turn of the 16th century onwards they became a standard part of the printed Liber extra. They were put into the section of the main text dedicated to the very contents of the Decretals, and by this location their significance was signalled (e.g., they could have been left in the margins, in accordance with the ‘agora template’, like all remaining additions of canon law jurisprudence). The discussion below will cover the jurisprudential attitude towards summaria in two sections, first in the 16th–18th centuries, when the overall significance of canon law was still high, and then in the 19th–20th centuries, mostly in books approaching the subject from the perspective of legal history.
We may also add that some summaria did not necessarily carry any significant message. They are merely present and do not support comprehension or memorising the decretals. This seems to be the case with such summaria as, e.g., Breve est (X 1,13,2), Non summatur (X 1,14,1), Se summat (X 1,37,3), Breve est, nec potest brevius summari (X 3,14,1; 3,22,1), the summaria to the first six capitula from X 5,36, or summaria which referred to the previous chapters (e.g. X 1,30,4; 2,28,14; 2,28,15; 3,4,9). Most summaria, however, were formulated to facilitate the comprehension of the chapters, and for this reason they might have attracted the attention of the jurisprudence.
4.1 16th–18th centuries
Summaria were not mentioned in the works that elaborated on the history of the Decretals authored by, e.g., Alberico Gentili (1552–1608)48, Emanuel González Téllez (?–1649)49, François Florent (ca. 1590–1650)50 and Zeger Bernard van Espen (1646–1728)51. Téllez is an especially interesting example, as he did not add summaria to his work, which was based on the broad historical studies presented in the special section of his commentary to each chapter of the Decretals (Notae). It is a meaningful argumentum ex silentio, as he certainly was very well acquainted with the history of the Liber extra and intentionally did not add summaria.
Anaklet Reiffenstuel (1641–1703) was very informative on summaria in the introduction to his Ius canonicum universum. He inquired as to the authority of the inscriptions and summaries to the chapters (not only from the Decretals but in general). According to Reiffenstuel, summaria presented a brief summary of the contents of each chapter. However, they were not part of the source text; they were just added for the sake of the readers’ convenience. He recalled Giovanni d’Andrea, Antonio da Budrio, Domenico da San Gimignano and Niccolò de Tudeschi as the most important source authors of summaria (to the various parts of Corpus). Therefore, summaria were doctrinalia, they did not have authority and could not by themselves create the basis for a court ruling, unless it was in accordance with the source text of the chapter52. Then Reiffenstuel provided an interesting reference to the marginal note of Antonio Massa (Gallesius; 1500–1568). Massa gave a general remark on the nature of the summarium and he stressed that summaria should merely convey what the statutes they were epitomising stated expressly (contrary to notabilia, which should be built from what was implicitly known from the statutes)53. However, this note had no connection at all with the summaria in the Decretals or even in canon law. Nevertheless, Reiffenstuel added to this reference an observation that summaria should be esteemed highly.
The words of Reiffenstuel were almost reiterated verbatim by Franz Xaver Schmalzgrueber (1663–1735)54. It is not possible to determine whether other canon lawyers or legal historians did refer to summaria, but it seems that at least the most renowned authors did not address summaria as a separate, legally significant issue55. This does not mean that summaria were not referred to at all. An example in this regard were the commentaries to selected chapters of the Liber extra of Marco Mantova Benavides (1489–1582), who usually began with a reference to the summaria of Panormitanus, which were used as source for the summaria in the Liber extra. Nevertheless, we may say that for the first three centuries after their addition to the printed Decretals, summaria were not recognised as a crucial part of the compilation. Apart from the earliest editors who praised the usefulness of summaria, the canonists did not pay a lot of attention to them. They at times referred to summaria as an additional interpretative tool but it seems that except for Reiffenstuel canonists did not contemplate the general significance of summaria, nor did the summaries attract the attention of legal historians, as summaria were later artificially added paratexts which did not help in the studies on the history of the Liber extra at all. Surprisingly, despite these observations, summaria were continuously inserted in most editions of the Liber extra, as we have noted earlier.
4.2 19th–20th centuries
In the 19th century some legal historians commented on summaria. Georg Phillips (1804–1872) mentioned summaria and followed Reiffenstuel in the description of their nature and significance. What he added is that he placed the summaria alongside the glossae in terms of their authoritative and interpretative value – neither had legal authority but both enjoy the respectful recognition of learned authors56. He also added an abbreviated translation of the common saying glossa est idolum imperitorum advocatorum first expressed by Cino da Pistoia57.
Johann Friedrich von Schulte (1827–1914), in his Die Geschichte der Quellen und Literatur des Canonischen Rechts, mentioned in one footnote that some authors confused superscriptiones and summaria, and briefly referred to the inconsistencies of their writings58. He also expressed his opinion that summaria drew the reader away from the source text and were often of no value, so in the editions of the Liber extra they should not be reiterated59. He wrote slightly more about the nature of summaria in Die Lehre von den Quellen des katholischen Kirchenrechts. He repeated the commonly expressed view that summaria lacked legal authority and names four canonists as the authors of the summaria to the collections of the decretals (the same as mentioned by Reiffenstuel). Nevertheless, summaria were, according to Schulte, a fine interpretative tool as they represented accepted scholarly views, eased the memorisation of the content of the decretals, and supported the uniform interpretation of the chapters. Therefore, they served as an important insight into the practice of canon law60.
We may add to these authors another four historians of canon law who wrote on the history of Corpus Iuris Canonici. Franz Laurin (1829–1913) claimed, aside from the standard description of the origins of the summaria, that they have a scholarly value which could be rated by the scope of accordance between the summarium and the contents of each chapter. He also followed Schulte in pointing out that summaria reflected the then-current meaning of the chapters61. Alphonse Van Hove (1872–1947) noted that summaria were additions to the decretal collections from private works and for this reason they did not have any legal force, but they might facilitate the interpretation of the sources62. Pierre Torquebiau (1890–1964) noticed only that summaria were common additions to the editions of the Liber extra63. Alfons Maria Stickler (1910–2007) provided a similar account and stressed that summaria had a scholarly and interpretative value similar to the Gloss64.
4.3 The functions of summaria attested by the secondary literature
We may now try to provide conclusions regarding the nature of summaria, by drawing on the examined literature. There are four levels at which their nature may be assessed: normative, interpretative, didactic and epistemic.
Summaria did not have officially sanctioned normative value, as they were not part of the authoritative text promulgated by the pope. Here two additional remarks may be significant. First, despite the lack of normative value, summaria were placed in the editions of the Liber extra in the section dedicated to the source text and not among the annotations. This might have led to them being held by some authors in greater esteem than they deserved. In fact, it might even have led to them being used as normative arguments, e.g., from the category of argumentum a rubrica or a rubro ad nigrum. The justification of this claim will require extensive studies on the early modern canon law jurisprudence. Second, summaria might have received some normative value as part of the editio Romana, which was also promulgated by the pope and superseded the previous editions of the books contained in Corpus Iuris Canonici65. Again, as this was not expressly noted by the canonists and legal historians, this statement is only an assumption.
The most relevant characteristic of summaria is that they were perceived as interpretative tools. They could be used for the explanation of the contents of the chapters, for the comprehension of the norms expressed in the chapters, or for the support of constant interpretation of the chapters. They were meant to contain a ratio of the respective chapters. In this regard, summaria have been appreciated as having an authority similar to that of glossae. The latter received much more attention from the canonists and the examination of the status of glossae may contribute to the understanding of the role of summaria. However, summaria appeared later than glossae, so we should not equate their authority as interpretative tools. In fact, an important question is whether summaria shared the authority of their original authors. A great deal of effort will be required to determine whether canonists refer to summaria as part of the edition of the Decretals or as summaria of, e.g., Panormitanus.
Third, summaria served as a didactic instrument which should support the memorisation and comprehension of the chapters by students. This objective was the one planned as a primary one by the editors who first introduced summaria to the Liber extra, but it did not lose its significance until the 19th century (as proved by the writings of Schulte). Consequently, it will be desirable to place the role of summaria in the broader context of legal education in the modern era.
Finally, the printed summaria may be used as an epistemic tool for examining the meaning of the Liber extra in the 15th century. They reflect both law in action and jurisprudential consensus over the interpretation of respective chapters. In this regard, we can also ask whether the summaria to the Liber extra were understood as the petrified communis opinio expressed in the early 15th century by Panormitanus, probably the most influential canonist of this time66.
One caveat should be added to close this section. All these functions of summaria were acknowledged by the canonists and legal historians as late as the second half of the 17th century. Therefore, it seems adequate to note that these functions might have been projected by scholars, rather than being actual functions of summaria in the 16th and 17th centuries67.
5 Conclusions
The summaria in the printed Liber extra are a minor issue for the history of canon law. Nevertheless, this issue is linked to various general themes crucial for the understanding of this history, such as the transmission of legal sources, the influence of canonists on the development of canon law, the evolution of methods applied in canon law, and the teaching of canon law. Summaria were first introduced in the edition of Torti from 1489 by Girolamo Chiari and were taken mostly from Panormitanus’ Commentaria and thus indirectly from the earlier canonists, as Panormitanus regularly reiterated earlier summaria added to the commentaries to the Liber extra. It was a continuation of an earlier method of commenting on statutes and canons which aimed at synthesizing the ratio of each provision in a brief formula. The addition of summaria in 1489 was clearly an example of successful innovation and brilliant proof of fruitful cooperation between the printer and the editor, who was a well-educated scholar. The other redaction of summaria was provided by Jean Chappuis in the edition of 1501 and it was this redaction that influenced the later editions of Liber extra. Both redactions were preserved in the editio Romana, either in the centre or in the margins. The success of summaria was proved by the fact that almost all editions of the Liber extra after 1489 up to the 19th century editions contained these brief summaries.
This editorial achievement has not been appreciated by the interest of canonists or legal historians. Summaria were simply reiterated for centuries without critical examination. This omission is evidenced by the scarce number of scholarly accounts on summaria. The inquiry dedicated to the history and scholarly significance of summaria led to the conclusion that this small part of the printed editions of the Decretals was only briefly addressed by the canonists and historians of canon law. However, they were recognised in jurisprudence as interpretative tools which had no legal power, but which were important for the explanation of the respective chapters of the Liber extra. Summaria had their own significance and require further examination in the context of the broadly understood development of canon law. The more detailed study of the transmission of summaria from the manuscripts to the incunabula and on the printed variants of summaria may contribute to our understanding of the development of canon law in the early modern era.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Tymoteusz Mikołajczak for sharing with me his initial research outcomes on summaria to c. Antigonus (X 1,35,1) and his ample notes on the working manuscript. I also thank Martin Bertram, Douglas Osler, Silvia Di Paolo, Atria Larson, Joanna Frońska, and anonymous reviewers who all provided me with their comments and remarks to the draft versions of this paper. The special acknowledgments are due to the librarians from various institutions across Europe and the US.
The author is supported by the Foundation for Polish Science with the START fellowship.
Not to mention the illuminations in the manuscripts of the Liber extra, which however do not fall within the scope of this paper. On the illuminations in the Liber extra, see: Decretales pictae, Le miniature nei manoscritti delle Decretali di Gregorio IX (Liber Extra), Atti del colloquio internazionale tenuto all’Istituto Storico Germanico, Roma 3-4 marzo 2010, [Online-Publikationen des Deutschen Historischen Instituts in Rom Nr. 11], ed. M. Bertram [e] S. Di Paolo, Rom 2012 (online:
I found such statements during an examination of the literature on the history of the pacta sunt servanda maxim which was rooted in the summarium to c. Antigonus (X 1,35,1). Cf. e.g. Lateinische Rechtsregeln und Rechtssprichwörter, hrsg. von D. Liebs, München 1983, p. 150; R. Zimmermann, The law of obligations: Roman foundations of the civilian tradition, Oxford 1996, p. 543; A. Kacprzak, La regola ‘pacta sunt servanda’ e la nascita della libertà contrattuale, Zeszyty Prawnicze, 19 (2019), p. 204. See also a report on two other scholars who were not aware when summaria were added, J.F. von Schulte, Die Geschichte der Quellen und Literatur des Canonischen Rechts von Papst Gregor IX. bis zum Concil von Trient, Stuttgart 1877, p. 21, n. 14. My first, largely inaccurate, observations on the summaria to the Liber extra were given in the short annex to the monograph P. Alexandrowicz, Kanonistyczne uzasadnienie swobody umów w zachodniej tradycji prawnej [Canonistic justification of freedom of contract in the Western legal tradition], Poznań 2020, p. 281-286. For the comprehensive study on the summarium to c. Antigonus, see P. Alexandrowicz, Pacta sunt servanda: canon law and the birth and dissemination of the legal maxim, Bulletin of Medieval Canon Law, 38 (2021), p. 193-210.
E.A. Reno, The authoritative text: Raymond of Penyafort’s editing of the Decretals of Gregory ix (1234), [unpublished PhD thesis], New York 2011, p. 122. The reference to the history of the transmission of the Liber extra in print is presented in this work at p. 122-138. See also Schulte, Die Geschichte (supra, n. 2), p. 22-25; A. Tardif, Histoire des sources du droit canonique, Paris 1887, p. 217-219; F. Cimetier, Les sources du droit ecclésiastique, Paris 1930, p. 98-99; G. Fransen, Les décrétales et les collections de décrétales, Turnhout 1972, p. 42-43; M. Bertram, Die Dekretalen Gregors IX.: Kompilation oder Kodifikation?, in: Magister Raimundus, Atti del Convegno per il IV centenario della canonizzazione di san Raimondo de Penyafort (1601–2001), ed. C. Longo, Roma 2002, p. 76-79.
D. Osler, Printed sources and the philological method (online,
K. Haebler, The study of incunabula, trans. L.E. Osborne, New York 1933, p. 91.
A.M. Hespanha, Form and content in early modern legal books: bridging the gap between material bibliography and the history of legal thought, Rechtsgeschichte, 12 (2008), p. 19-22.
However, as proved by the study of Reno, The authoritative text (supra, n. 3), the inscriptions may be useful for addressing a plethora of important research questions. An interesting example which shows not only the authoritative character of the inscriptions but also their direct legal implications is the superscriptio to VI 3,13,1, where certain privileges were granted to the Dominicans, see gloss. s.v. praedicatorum to VI 1,6,24 (col. 146 in the editio Romana). This point is not without controversies, e.g. some scholars argued that superscriptiones are only of historical value and that they lack normative significance, cf. Schulte, Die Geschichte (supra, n. 2), p. 20-21, n. 14.
See the great and concise report on these summaries by S. Dauchy, G. Martyn, A. Musson, H. Pihlajamäki, A. Wijffels, Law books during the transition from late-medieval to early-modern legal scholarship, in: The formation and transmission of Western legal culture: 150 books that made the law in the age of printing, ed. S. Dauchy, G. Martyn, A. Musson, H. Pihlajamäki [and] A. Wijffels, Cham 2016, p. 13-14.
See C.H.F. Meyer, Putting Roman and canon law in a nutshell: developments in the epitomisation of legal texts between late Antiquity and the early modern period, in: Knowledge of the pragmatici, Legal and moral theological literature and the formation of early modern Ibero-America, ed. T. Duve [and] O. Danwerth, Leiden 2020, p. 40-88; C.H.F. Meyer, Römisches und kanonisches Recht kurz und bündig, Zur Epitomierung lateinischer Rechtstexte zwischen Spätantike und Moderne, Rechtsgeschichte, 28 (2020), p. 31-66.
S. Kuttner, Repertorium der Kanonistik (1140–1234), Prodromus Corporis Glossarum I, [Studi e Testi, 71], Città del Vaticano 1937, p. 228-232, 397-407.
Schulte, Die Geschichte (supra, n. 2), p. 492-494.
See e.g. Città del Vaticano, BAV, Vat.lat. 1381, Vat.lat. 1382; Roma, Biblioteca Nazionale, S. Onofrio 129. For directing my attention to the early history of summaria to the Decretals I would like to thank especially Martin Bertram.
A. Errera, Alle origini della scuola del commento: le additiones all’apparato accursiano, in: Studi di storia del diritto medioevale e moderno, ed. F. Liotta, vol. 2, Bologna 2007, p. 93-102.
A. Padovani, ‘Tenebo hunc ordinem’, Metodo e struttura della lezione nei giuristi medievali (secoli XII–XIV), Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis, 79 (2011), p. 381; see also n. 120 on the same page.
X 2,21,6, summarium: ‘Super consanguinitate probanda cogendi sunt testes. Ita communiter summatur. Sed Panor. non placet hoc summarium et ideo summat sicut c. 1. supra eod.’ (editio Romana). Cf. Nicolaus de Tudeschis, Commentaria in secundam secundi Decretalium Libri partem, Venetiis 1571, ad X 2,21,6, fol. 112vb. Such references to Panormitanus, the Gloss or other canonists occur in summaria regularly.
O. Condorelli, Panormitanus: Commentaries on the Decretals, in: The formation (supra, n. 8), p. 51-52.
For this remark I would like to thank Silvia di Paolo. Summaria in decisiones were already added in the edition Rome 1474 (ed. Antonio and Raffaelle di Volterra; GW 8209) to ease the use of the collections by readers. They were also present in the edition Rome 1475 (ed. Georg Lauer; GW 8203) – an important collection of decisiones by Giovanni Francesco Pavini. On the latter edition see A. Santangelo Cordani, La giurisprudenza della Rota romana nel secolo XIV, Milan 2001, p. 56-57; 66-67, n. 18.
The transmission of legal texts from manuscripts to incunabula is a complex and understudied matter in and of itself. For an exemplary study on the creation of the early incunabula of Extravagantes Communes, see S. Di Paolo, Verso la modernità giuridica della Chiesa: Giovanni Francesco Pavini (ca. 1424–1485): la stampa, le decisiones, le extravagantes e la disciplina amministrativa, Roma 2018, p. 61-80.
See e.g. a very late (mid-1480s) rich manuscript commissioned by Tristandus de Salazar, archbishop of Sens, Città del Vaticano, BAV, Vat.lat. 6054, and two more modest 15th century manuscripts Kraków, Biblioteka Jagiellońska, 359 III and Warszawa, Biblioteka Narodowa, 8039 III. On the BAV, Vat.lat. 6054, see A. Larson, Popes and canon law, in: A companion to the medieval papacy: growth of an ideology and institution, ed. K. Sisson [and] A. Larson, [Brill’s Companions to the Christian tradition, 70], Leiden 2016, p. 145, n. 28.
Bertram, Die Dekretalen (supra, n. 3), p. 76; M. Bertram, Fragmente der Dekretalen Gregors IX. (Liber Extra), Wanderungen durch eine europäische Trümmerlandschaft, in: Fragment und Makulatur, Überlieferungsstörungen und Forschungsbedarf bei Kulturgut in Archiven und Bibliotheken, hrsg. von H.P. Neuheuser [und] W. Schmitz, Wiesbaden 2015, p. 157-159.
It would not be possible without the richness of various digital collections of incunabula and the invaluable database Gesamtkataloge der Wiegendrucke (
I did not examine the editions marked with [*] – in these cases my statement is based solely on the data from GW.
Panzanelli Fratoni, Printing the law (supra, n. 4), p. 96-99.
Schulte, Die Geschichte (supra, n. 2), p. 23, n. 6.
R. Feenstra, Le Casus Institutionum de Guido de Cumis (manuscrits et editions), in: Études en souvenir de Georges Chevrier, vol. 1, [Memoires de la Société pour l’Histoire du Droit et des Institutions des anciens pays bourgignons, comtois et romands, 29], Dijon 1968–1969, p. 251-252, n. 3; Imprimeurs et libraires parisiens du XVIe siècle: Ouvrage publié d’après les manuscrits de Philippe Renouard, vol. 5: Bocard-Bonamy, ed. S. Postel-Lecocq [et] M.-J. Beaud, Paris 1991, p. 60-61; Hieronymus Clarius Brixiensis, in: Bio-bibliographical guide to medieval and early modern jurists (online, accessed 8.09.2021); Panzanelli Fratoni, Printing the law (supra, n. 4), p. 99, n. 92.
V. Peroni, Chiari Girolamo, in: idem, Biblioteca bresciana opera postuma di Vincenzo Peroni patrizio bresciano, vol. 1, Brescia 1818, p. 257.
Colophon, fol. 287v: ‘Candide lector habes argumenta singulis decretalibus addita beneficio eximii iuris utriusque doctoris domini Hieronymi Clarii Brixiensi archipresbyteri Bidisolani riperie Brixiane Benaci Lacus ex decretalibus suis sic diligenter annotatis cum adhuc esset bononiae scholaris divo Barbacia praeceptore’. Interestingly, exactly this colophon was printed in P.G. Reichhart, Beiträge zur Incunabelnkunde, vol. 1, [Beihefte zum Centralblatt für Bibliothekenwesen, 14], Leipzig 1895, p. 453.
Fol. 273rb: ‘Exactum insigne hoc atque praeclarum opus Decretalium, cum summariis additis singulis decretalibus’.
According to GW: ‘Nova compilatio decretalium Gregorii IX cum summariis finit feliciter’.
According to GW: ‘Decretales cum summariis suis et textuum divisionibus ac etiam rubricarum continuationibus una cum casibus Bernardi singulis decretalibus annotates’. GW adds also the note that it was printed with the types of Torti.
According to GW: ‘Decretalium domini papae Gregorii noni. Compilatio accurata diligentia emendata summoque studio elaborata, cum summariis divisionibusque et rubricarum continuationibus unacum scripturis sacris aptissime ad textum concordata’.
Torti, fol. 1r: ‘Decretales cum summariis suis et textuum divisionibus ac etiam rubricarum continuationibus’.
Torti, fol. 1v: ‘Decretalium hanc Gregorianam compilationem candide lector habes illustratam lucubrationibus clarissimi utriusque iuris doctoris domini Hieronymi Clarii Brixiensis cum quibusdam additamentis suis praeter emendationem: certe rem novam tam pro summulis additis singulis decretalibus cum earum divisionibus ac continuationibus rubricarum quam etiam casibus praesertim difficilioribus sine quibus quam plures decretales facile intelligi non possunt et notabilibus locis in textu ac magistralibus glossis sic diligenter ut vides signatis miro ordine pro communi studentum utilitiate’.
According to GW the note on the editiorial work of Chiari was reiterated from the edition of Torti 1489.
On Johann Frober, see the extensive study and catalogue, V. Sebastiani, Johann Froben, printer of Basel: a biographical profile and catalogue of his editions, Leiden 2018.
Foreword, s.f.: ‘Secundo duo conducunt: videlicet ordinata dispositio et summaria brevisque singulorum capitum expositio’.
Foreword, s.f.: ‘Est praeterea debite dispositionis ordo servatus: in brevi ac summaria singulorum titulorum et ante omnes et ante singulos libros cum suis capitulis praenotatione. Praemissi sunt etiam cum rubro singulis capitibus casus summarii: clare exponentes ea que in ipsis continentur’.
Foreword, s.f.: ‘Ac postremo frequentem meditationem summaria praenotatio cum ipsa lectione plurimum adiuvat’.
According to GW: ‘Decretales cum divisionibus summariis et rubricarum continuationibus ex Panormitano in glossam noviter additis’.
Fol. 1V: ‘Summaria seu intellectus novi ad quamplures textus in quinque libris Decretalium: incipiendo a titulo de constitutionibus et persequendo omnes alios titulos in quibus ordinarie legitur: traditi per excellentissimum iuris utriusque monarcham: et lumen aeternum dominum Andream: vulgo Barbatiam appellatum: nuper notati et diligenter extracti ab omnibus eiusdem commentariis per clarissimum iureconsultum: equitemque auratum: sacri pallatii advocatum consistorialem regium ducalemque consiliarium dominum Ludovicum Bologninum de Bononia’.
Contents, s.f.: ‘Summaria Panormitani que modo in textu, modo in glosa prius impressa fuerant et re vera nimium pueriliter, hic ubique supra textum maioris gratia conformitatis reperiuntur’.
Contents, s.f.: ‘Summaria Panormitani hic ubique supra textus maioris gratia conformitatis reperiuntur’.
Contents, s.f.: ‘Summaria Panormitani hic ubique supra textum reperiuntur’.
See e.g. D. Osler, The myth of European legal history, Rechtshistorisches Journal, 16 (1997), p. 405-406.
I did not manage to consult the edition Paris of 1560.
The antecedent dissertation on the history of papal decretals: Justus Henning Böhmer, Dissertatio altera de decretalium Pontificum Romanorum variis collectionibus et fortuna, in: Corpus iuris canonici, vol. 2: Decretales iussu Gregorii IX collectas cum Libro Sexto, Clementinis et Extravagantibus tum Ioannis XXIII tum Communibus continens et appendice varii argumenti auctus, ed. Justus Henning Böhmer, Hallae 1747, p. I–XXXIV.
These preliminary claims are mostly inspired by the comments and sample studies from Martin Bertram and Tymoteusz Mikołajczak.
Alberico Gentili, De libris iuris canonici, in: idem, Disputationes tres, Hanoviae 1605, p. 5-54.
Emanuel González Téllez, Apparatus in quo de origine et progressu iuris canonici agitur, in: idem, Commentaria perpetua in singulos textus quinque librorum Decretalium Gregorii IX, vol. 1, Francofurti ad Moenum 1690, p. 1-27.
François Florent, De methodo et autoritate collectionis Gratiani er reliquarum omnium collectionum decretalium post Gratianum, in: idem, Opera iuridica, ed. J. Doujat, Parisiis 1679, p. 41-58.
Zeger Bernard van Espen, Dissertatio in quinque libros Decretalium, in: idem, Scripta omnia quatuor tomis comprehensa, vol. 4: Commentarius in canones et decreta iuris novi et in ius novissimum. Opus posthumum hactenus ineditum, Lovanii 1753, p. 1-8.
Anacletus Reiffenstuel, Ius canonicum universum clara methodo iuxta titulos quinque librorum Decretalium in quaestiones distributum, solidisque responsionibus, et de obiectionum solutionibus dilucidatum, vol. 1, Venetiis 1735, Prooemium, § 6, num. 106-107, p. 15: ‘Quaeritur I: Cuius authoritatis existant superscriptiones ac summaria capitulorum? Resp. I: Quantum attinet ad summaria, quibus nimirum capitula summantur, horumque contentum in brevem summam redigitur; ea non sunt de textu, sed pro majori legentium commoditate primum addita fuerunt ex scriptis diversorum doctorum, praesertim Abbatis Panormitani, Ioannis Andreae, Dominici, et aliorum, qui in ipsismet summariis non raro allegantur. Patet proinde, quod haec sint quaedam doctrinalia, sed vim authenticam et decisivam in iudiciis non habeant, nisi in quantum concordat cum textu subsequenti. (...) merito summaria in magna aestimatione sunt habenda’.
Antonio Massa, De exercitatione Iurisperitorum libri tres, Coloniae Agrippinae 1554, lib. 3, num. 70, p. 194: ‘Et (ut obiter hoc quoque dicamus) ex dictis colligitur ratio faciendi singularum legum summaria et colligendi ex illis notabilia et insignes propositiones. Summaria enim constituenda sunt ex his, quae legum ipsarum expressa verba sonant. Notabilia vero ex his, quae tacite intelliguntur’.
Franz Xaver Schmalzgrueber, Ius ecclesiasticum universum brevi methodo ad discentium utilitatem explicatum seu lucubrationes canonicae in quinque Libros Decretalium Gregorii IX pontificis maximi, vol. 1, Neapoli – Venetiis 1738, Dissertatio Prooemialis, § 7, num. 302, p. 40.
I consulted the initial pages of the most influential works of Marco Mantova Benavides, Giovanni Paolo Lancelotti, Henricus Canisius, Prospero Fagnani, Agostinho Barbosa, Ehrenreich Pirhing, Gregor Zallwein.
G. Phillips, Kirchenrecht, vol. 4, Regensburg 1851, p. 427-428: ‘Während also die Rubriken eine authentische Bedeutung haben und diese auch den Capitelüberschriften der Decretalen beigelegt werden darf, so gilt das Gleiche von den Summarien und Glossen nicht. Die erstern bestehen zwar gewöhnlich aus Worten der Decretalen selbst, sind aber doch nur von Privatpersonen zur bloßen Bequemlichkeit beim Gebrauche der Gesetze gemacht worden und haben daher eben so wie die Glosse, obschon diese für das “Idol der Anwälte” gilt, einen zwar großen, aber doch nur doctrinellen Werth’.
Cf. Cino da Pistoia, Lectura super aureo volumine Codicis et ff., Lugduni? 1528, ad C. 8,37,8, fol. 302rb.
Schulte, Die Geschichte (supra, n. 2), p. 21, n. 14.
Schulte, Die Geschichte (supra, n. 2), p. 24.
J.F. von Schulte, Die Lehre von den Quellen des katholischen Kirchenrechts: mit vorzüglicher Berücksichtigung der Rechtsentwicklung in den dt. Bundesstaaten, Giessen 1860, p. 360-361: ‘Was die den einzelnen Kapiteln in den Ausgaben seit dem 16. Jahrhundert allgemein vorgesetzten kurzen Inhaltsangaben, Summae, Summaria betrifft, so kann denselben keinerlei gesetzliche Autorität zugesprochen werden, weil sie nicht vom Gesetzgeber herrühren, noch jemals anerkannt sind. Dieselben rühren beim Dekrete wahrscheinlich nicht von Gratian selbst her, bei den Dekretalen von Joannes Andreä, Antonius de Butrio, Panormitanus (Abbas) und Dominicus a S. Geminiano. Aber trotzdem bilden sie für die Interpretation oft deshalb kein schlechtes Hülfsmittel, weil schon ihre Aufnahme in das Corpus juris beweist, dass man sie allgemein für richtig ansah, weil ferner die Praxis für das Verständniss der Stellen ihrer Neigung zu Eselsbrücken entsprechend sich von jeher lieber an sie als an das Gesetz hielt, zumal dieselben durchgehends mit den Worten der Capita auch deren Sinn richtig geben. Jedenfalls haben sie insofern Werth, als sie die durch die Praxis vielfach gebilligten Ansichten von Leuten geben, denen in der Literaturgeschichte überhaupt und besonders für die praktische Entwicklung des Rechts ein bedeutender Platz zukommt’.
F. Laurin, Introductio in Corpus Iuris Canonici cum appendice brevem introductionem in Corpus Iuris Civilis continente, Friburgi Brisgoviae et Vindobonae 1889, § 93, p. 159-160: ‘Summaria capitum valorem legalem nequaquam habere, iam inde consequitur, quod ipsa a Papa Gregorio approbata non sunt, immo neque a Raymundo proveniunt, sed demum post illum successu temporis ab editoribus huius collectionis e lecturis seu commentariis ad eam adornatis, v.g. Abbatis antiqui, Joannis Andreae, Abbatis Siculi (Panormitani) et aliorum canonistarum hausta et capitibus istis praefixa sunt. Unde patet, eis solummodo doctrinalem valorem inesse, qui scilicet omnino pendet a rationibus, quibus ipsa innituntur, nominatim ab eo, utrum reapse tenori capitum congruant, necne. Porro autem eadem summaria testimonium perhibent, quo sensu respectiva capita tunc temporis accepta a canonistis fuerint’.
A. van Hove, Prolegomena ad Codicem iuris canonici, Mechliniae – Romae 1945, p. 360: ‘Summaria capitulis addita opus privatum sunt neque habent vim legis; interpretationi inservire possunt’.
P. Torquebiau, Corpus Iuris Canonici, in: Dictionnaire de droit canonique, vol. 4, ed. R. Naz, Paris 1949, col. 631.
A.M. Stickler, Historia iuris canonici latini, vol. 1: Historia fontium, Roma 1974, p. 248: ‘summaria capitulorum: postea addita sunt a diversis privatis editoribus Decretalium, probabiliter ad instar summariorum Gratiani. Ideoque omni vi legali carebant; valorem tamen doctrinalem et etiam interpretativum habebant, eo quod antiquorum canonistarum et glossatorum sententias et interpretationes referrent. Idem dicendum de glossis’.
Cf. K.W. Nörr, Die Entwicklung des Corpus Iuris Canonici, in: Handbuch der Quellen und Literatur der neueren Europäischen Privatrechtsgeschichte, vol. 1: Mittelalter (1100–1500), ed. H. Coing, München 1973, p. 843.
Recently on the communis opinio, see T. Mikołajczak, The authority of communis opinio doctorum in the medieval and early modern Ius commune (13th–16th centuries), Bulletin of Medieval Canon Law, 37 (2020), p. 87-134.
For the attempt to acknowledge these functions on the example of the summarium to c. Antigonus, see Alexandrowicz, Pacta sunt servanda (supra, n. 2), p. 208.
