A careful scrutiny of the arrangement of capitula within each title shows that Raymond employed a consistent method in organizing his material. The overarching organizing principle is chronological. The older (pre-Gregorian Reform), non-papal capitula – consisting in the main of local councils, and Patristic and Biblical texts – appear at the front of each title.351 Thereafter comes the papal material, grouped together
349 X 1.6.6-7, X 2.7.1-2, X 2.19.3, X 2.24.1, X 2.27.8, X 3.1.9, X 3.21.2, X 3.26.11, X 3.28.3, X 3.32.11, X 3.37.1, X 3.43.2-3, X 4.1.2, X 4.1.4, X 4.18.3, X 5.15.1.
350 Definitive manuscript evidence exists for the mobility of X 3.3.8 and X 5.6.6. Two additional cases can also be inferred: the inscriptions demonstrate that X 1.9.15 and X 1.11.14 are slightly out of place in their respective titles, but to date no manuscripts have been found containing the presumed original ordering.
351 There are a small number of exceptions where early decretals (pre-Gregorian reform) begin the title instead of patristic or conciliar material. In X 3.26 (De testamentis), for example, an early medieval council of Mainz (X 3.26.6) comes after texts of Gregory the Great (X 3.26.1-5; c.1 is erroneously attributed to Gregory IX in the ER, but properly attributed in early manuscripts and Friedberg codices).
Similarly in X 5.1 (De accusationibus), Gregory the Great (cc. 3-4) again appears before a Mainz canon (c.
6), a Burchard extract (c. 8) and an Augustine sentence (c. 9). This could be because of the dual status of Gregory the Great’s texts as both decretals and patristic sententiae. While the vast majority adhere to the
chronologically by pontificate up through Gregory IX. Within each grouping – whether of patristic, conciliar or papal texts – Raymond often rearranged the order of his sources so as to fit together texts that shared similar information in their inscriptions, or derived from the same source.352 The canons of Lateran IV, for example, are grouped together without exception after the decretals of Innocent III, even when they are often sequenced before Innocent's letters in the relevant 4Comp title.353 While a common origin is the most frequent non-chronological reason for reordering, Raymond also rearranged the order of his sources to bring together decretals directed to the same recipient.354 For groups of similar texts, Raymond employed a principle of economy in writing out the inscriptions. The inscriptions are consolidated whenever possible, with the determinative pronouns Idem, eidem and ex eodem used to establish links between capitula with the same sender, addressee,355 or canons from the same council.356 This principle of
economy is a critical guidepost for evaluating the manuscripts of the Decretals as well as Raymond’s formal sources. When two consecutive capitula are encountered that do not
overall chronological schema, pre-Gregorian Reform era texts are unique in the Decretals for the
occasional lapse in chronological rigor.
352 For example, Raymond reversed the order of the 1Comp sources for X 1.18.3-4 (1Comp 1.10.4 and c. 3) to keep together the canons from the council of Toledo (X 1.18.1-3; 1Comp 1.10.1-2 and c. 4), placing them in front of a canon from the council of Altheim (X 1.18.4, (1Comp 1.10.3)). For this last capitulum, the ER inscription is "Ex concilio apud Alichi," but Friedberg's apparatus notes the concurrence of early manuscripts and the 1Comp source around the reading of "Altheum" (Altheim).
353 X 5.38.11-4 (4Comp 5.14: c. 3, c. 2, c. 4 and c. 5), where cc. 12-4 are the Lat. IV canons.
354 The three Aledxander III decretals at X 3.50.5-7 (1Comp 3.37.6, c. 5, and c. 7) were rearranged so that the two letters to the bishop of London (X 3.50.6-7; 1Comp 3.37.5, c. 7) appeared in consecutive order, with the inscription of the second letter (c. 7) changed from Idem London(i)ensi to Idem eidem.
355 X 3.38.8-9 (1Comp 3.33.10-1) are Alexander III letters to the bishop of Wincester both originally inscribed "Idem [Alex. III] Wintoniensi episcopo." Raymond consolidates the inscription of c. 11 to read
"Idem eidem."
356 X 3.13.3-4 (1Comp 3.11: c. 3 and c. 5) are inscribed "Ex concilo Toletano," and "Ex eodem"
respectively. In 1Comp the Toledan inscription was written out in full for both texts, as they were separated by a canon (1Comp 3.11.4 = X 3.13.5) inscribed "Ex concilio apud Silvanectim." Raymond displaced this canon to X 3.13.5, so as to keep the Toledan texts together.
conform to this principle – for example, when the same name is written out twice, as is Innocent III's in earlier manuscript variants for X 3.43.2-3 – it is a likely indication of a transmission error in the Decretals.
Unless it was found necessary to rearrange the sources – whether to maintain chronological consistency or to string together two or more texts with similar inscriptions – as a rule Raymond preserved the ordering of the capitula he inherited from the 5C.357 This is why many of the titles in the Decretals are simply the sum of a wholesale transfer of texts from the relevant title in each of the 5C, with the groups of texts from each Compilatio following in orderly succession from oldest to newest (1Comp x.1-5; 2Comp x.1-5; 3Comp x.1-5, etc.).358 Raymond did not always assign his texts to the same title under which they had appeared in the 5C, and around 8% of the roughly 1800 non-Gregorian capitula were transposed to a different title in the Decretals.359 These transpositions were placed in order in their new titles, grouped with the other capitula
357 The one exception occurs in blocks of texts that mix Alexander III’s decretals with canons from the major council during his pontificate, Lateran III (1179). The majority of the time, Raymond treated both as chronologically equal and simply transmitted them in the sequence they were found in 1Comp, no matter if the Lateran III decrees appeared prior to or after Alexander III’s decretals. For reasons that are now difficult to ascertain, around one-quarter (7) of the instances where Lateran III canons are grouped together in a title with Alexander’s decretals Raymond reordered the sequence of texts so that the decretals appear first (X 2.20, X 3.1, X 3.30, X 3.39, X 5.6, X 5.19 and X 5.31). Considerations of content – which otherwise did little to govern the ordering of texts in the Decretals – may have been behind some of the rearrangements, for example in order to make consecutive two texts dealing with essentially the same issue within the title. This seems to be behind the reordering of the first few capitula in the title on usury, X 5.19.1-4 (1Comp 5.15.1, c. 4, cc. 2-3). The Alexander III decretal X 5.19.2, Quoniam non solum – initially the fourth in this block of texts taken over from 1Comp (1Comp 5.15.4) – was moved up in the order in front of a Lateran III canon (X 5.19.3/1Comp 5.14.2, Quia in omnibus), because the decretal made a slight adjustment to the baseline definition of usury set forth in X 5.19.1. The similarities between X 5.19.1-2 were highlighted by the eventual rubric assigned to c. 2, Quoniam non solum: “idem in effectu dicit [hoc caput] cum praecedenti capite, sed addit tacite idem esse in laicis. Nam in praecedenti capite tantum fuit facta mentio de clericis.” With this occasional if still opaque rearrangement of Alexander’s decretals in front of Lateran III canons acknowledged, it should also be noted that Raymond never took the opposite tack, i.e., deliberately repositioning Lateran III canons in front of the decretals.
358 This regularity can be grasped by looking at the helpful table in Friedberg's introduction (coll. xxix-xxxv).
attributed to the same pope, but usually slotted in at the end of the block of texts from whichever of the 1-5Comp it was taken. Although transpositions are occasionally found at the beginning of the block of texts drawn from the same formal source, there are only three cases where the transposition occurs in the middle of that block.360
The operation of these principles is most apparent in the longer titles. X 2.20 (De testibus et attestationibus) is a good example of where Raymond, in order to achieve chronological consistency, was forced to rearrange both the internal ordering of his sources, as well as the usual 1Comp, 2Comp, 3Comp, etc., sequence of a Decretals’ title.
The chart below lists the ordering of capitula in X 2.20 up through those drawn from 3Comp, whereafter the title reverts to following the sequence of texts as they appear in the formal source.
Table 3.1. The organization of capitula in X 2.20 De testibus et attestationibus X 2.20 Inscription
(papal/conc. attribution)
Formal Source X 2.20 Inscription
(papal/conc. attribution)
Formal Source
c.1 Ex Conc. Matercensi 2Comp c. 1 (2.12) c.16 Idem 1Comp c. 16 (2,13) c.2 Gregorius I 1Comp c. 3 (2.13) c.17 Idem “ c. 17 “ c.3 Idem “ c. 4 “ c.18 Idem “ c. 18 “ c.4 Paschal II “ c. 5 “ c.19 Idem “ c. 19 “ c.5 Eugenius III “ c. 20 “ c.20 Idem “ c. 4 (2.20) c.6 Idem “ c. 21 “ c.21 Idem ex conc. Lat. “ c. 5 (5.5) c.7 Idem “ c. 23 “ c.22 Idem 2Comp c. 2 (2.12) c.8 Idem “ c. 24 “ c.23 Idem “ c. 1 (2.2)
359 Another useful table drawn up by Friedberg breaks down by title and formal source the number of received and rejected capitula, as well as those that were transposed to a different title (coll. xxxv-xl).
360 X 2.20.23.22-4 (De testibus et attestationibus) derive from 2Comp 2.12.2 (De testibus), 2Comp 2.2.1 (De foro competenti) and 2Comp 2.12.5 (De testibus). X 2.24.31-3 (De ieiurando) come from 5Comp 2.15.1 (De iureiurando), 5Comp 1.25.1 (De iuramenta calumniae) and 5Comp 2.15.3 (De iureiurando). X 5.39.40-2 (De sententia excommunicatione) derive from 3Comp 5.21.14 (De sententia excommunicatione), 3Comp 2.2.1 (De rescriptis) and 3Comp 5.21.15 (De sententia excommunicationis). The total number of transpositions is 134, making these three a striking anomaly. There is no manuscript evidence, however, to suggest that these were anything other than Raymond's original configuration.
c.9 Alexander III “ c. 7 “ c.24 Idem “ c. 5 (2.12) c.10 Idem “ c. 9 “ c.25 Urbanus III 1Comp c . 25 (2.13) c.11 Idem “ c. 10 “ c.26 Clemens III 2Comp c. 3 (2.12) c.12 Idem “ c. 11 “ c.27 Coelestinus III “ c. 4 “ c.13 Idem “ c. 12 “ c.28 Innocentius III 3Comp c. 1 (2.12) c.14 Idem “ c. 14 “ c.29 Idem “ c. 2 “ c.15 Idem “ c. 15 “ c.30 Idem c. 3, etc.
The title actually commences with a 2Comp text attributed to a local council in Mâcon.361 The succession of papal material then proceeds with texts from the De testibus title in 1Comp 2.13, with the internal ordering of the canons rearranged so as to slot Eugenius III (cc. 5-8) between Paschal II (c. 4) and Alexander III (cc. 9-19). After exhausting the Alexander III texts from 1Comp 2.13, Raymond transposes two more Alexandrian capitula (cc. 20-1) drawn from other titles in 1Comp, following the normal pattern of keeping together material from the same formal sorce, unless compelled by chronological necessity (1Comp 2.20.4(De donationibus); 1Comp 5.5.5 (De Iudaeis)). Then follow the two Alexandrian capitula from 2Comp 2.12 (c. 22 and c. 24 = 2Comp 2.12.1 and c. 5), separated by an additional Alexander III text (c. 23) transposed from a different title (2Comp 2.2.1 (De foro competenti)).362 Raymond returns at c. 25 to 1Comp 2.13 for a single Urban III text (1Comp 2.13.25), before listing the remaining of capitula in 2Comp 2.12, which include decretals from Clement III (c. 26 = 2Comp 2.12.3) and Celestine III (c. 27 = 2Comp 2.12.4). The title goes on from there (cc. 28ff.) to reproduce the order of Innocent III and Honorius III texts as they appeared in 3-5Comp.
361 As Friedberg pointed out in his apparatus, the text was in fact from a Carolingian capitulary, but was labeled in 2Comp and most early Decretals manuscripts as "Ex concilio Maticensi." In the ER it is erroneously attributed to the council of the non-existent Matercensi.
362 See note 360.