The examination of the title De decimis has thus far demonstrated how Raymond deployed his sources according to a predictable set of criteria. Where the inscription in the ER indicates a source that seems out of place, recourse should be had to the early Decretals and formal source manuscripts, which usually show either that Raymond derived the variant reading from the 5C or that it was corrupted by the hands of later copyists of the Decretals. A whole different problem arises, however, with X 3.30.25, Tua, an anomaly that begins with the inscription and formal source identification, but ends up in the actual text of the decretal and the version of 3Comp Raymond might have used.
By placing this text in front of X 3.30.26, Tua nobis (3Comp 3.23.2), Raymond reunited two extracts from the same Innocent III letter sent ot the bishop of Vercelli that addressed the various efforts parishoners made to avoid tithes on agricultural produce.364 The section known simply later on as Tua (X 3.30.25) targeted imperial exemptions from tithe payments, and criticized those laymen who, having at one time received concessions of tithes in feudum, attempted to extend that concession to cover the produce of
364 Potthast 898; Reg. II.233. The letter as an integral unit received broad circulation among canonical collections during the first decade of Innocent’s pontificate, but beginning with Bernardus Compostellanus, it was divided into two sections: Tua (Bern. 2.1.1 = 3Comp 2.1.1 = 4Comp 3.9.4) and Tua nobis (Bern.
3.24.2 = 3Comp 3.23.2). See below, however, for the divergence between the forms of Tua in 3Comp and 4Comp.
cultivated lands (novalia) connected with the original grant.365 Tua nobis (X 3.30.26), on the other hand, highlighted tithe-avoidance strategies among peasants and landowners, such as calculating the total amount owed based upon the net (seed crop having been deducted) rather than the gross harvest, funneling tithes to favored charitable causes and clergy, and using the incompetence and corruption of the local clergy as an excuse to withhold tithes altogether. Raymond’s consecutive placement of two previously scattered extracts from the same letter was unusual, though not entirely without precedent, as one can see from the conjoinment of two sections of Ecclesia sanctae Mariae at X 2.16.3-4 (3Comp 2.2.5; 3Comp 2.6.1).366 Since there were two possible sources in the 5C for Tua – 3Comp 2.1.1 (De iudiciis) and 4Comp 3.9.4 (De decimis) – the question arises whence Raymond derived X 3.30.25. The answer to this question turns out to have some import for identifying Raymond’s sources.
Despite its lack of the full inscription to the Bishop of Vercelli, and that it would constitute an unprecedented insertion of a 4Comp text into the middle of a block of capitula from 3Comp, Friedberg identified 4Comp 3.9.4 as the source of X 3.30.25.367 Raymond’s normal method of organization would, instead, predict that he transposed 3Comp 2.1.1 from it’s original De iudiciis title, and placed it at X 3.30.25 in front of the
365 Horwitz (“Reshaping a decretal chapter,” pp. 211-3) speculates that the creation of the additional Tua extract by Bernardus Compostellanus – and its relegation to a title unrelated to tithes (De iudiciis) – was prompted by the general discomfort among canonsits with Innocent’s tacit acknowledgment in this section of the practice of laymen holding tithes in feudum. Bernardus (and Petrus Beneventanus after him in 3Comp) then pared down the Tua extract placed in De iudiciis to a bare condemnation against laymen wielding power over spiritual things, eliminating all mention of enfiefment. When incorporating Tua at 4Comp 3.9.4, Johannes Teutonicus restored the mention of lay-held tithes and placed the capitulum in the De decimis title. He failed to include, however, the opening portion of the canon as it read in 3Comp 2.1.1 (and X 3.30.25). A full discussion of these textual problems is given below.
366 Reg. II.230; Potthast 879.
other section of Tua nobis. This would also better account for the presence of the full inscription at X 3.30.25, which is provided in 3Comp 2.1.1. The appearance of the inscription at X 3.30.25 (Idem episcopo Vercellensi) is actually a solid piece of evidence in 3Comp 2.1.1’s favor, even though it might seem a trivial matter for Raymond to have supplied the missing inscription on his own, based upon his knowing the common origin of X 3.30.25-6. In other cases where Raymond transmitted two consecutive extracts from the same letter he did not supply the inscription if it was lacking in the formal source.368
In fact, there is another, more serious textual hurdle for either 3Comp 2.1.1 or 4Comp 3.9.4 as a source for X 3.30.25, since neither one transmits the entire text of Tua found in the Decretals. This discrepancy was first identified by Steven Horwitz, who studied the canonical transmission of Tua nobis, focusing in particular on the version included in some manuscripts containing the French recension of 3Comp.369 The problem is illustrated as follows with the full text of Tua from the Decretals, along with those sections of the text that are missing from the two possible sources:
X 3.30.25: Idem Vercellensi episcopo [Idem: 4Comp 3.9.4; Idem Vercell.
ep.: 3Comp 2.1.1]
367 In his edition of the Decretals, Friedberg did not signal the other 3Comp 2.1.1 possibility. In his edition of the 5C, however, he annotated (but did not crossreference) his entries for both 3Comp 2.1.1 and 4Comp 3.9.4 with X 3.30.25 as the Decretals text for which these two served as sources.
368 Including X 3.30.25-6, there are fourteen cases in the Decretals (nine for Alexander III and five for Innocent III) where two or more consecutive extracts from the same letter appear:: X 1.11.2-3 (1Comp 1.6.2-3); X 1.29.7-8 (1Comp 1.21.9-10); X 2.13.5-6 (1Comp 2.9.5-6); X 2.16.3-4 (3Comp 2.2.1; 3Comp 2.6.1); X 2.28.5-7 (1Comp 2.20.5-7); X 2.28.9-11 (1Comp 2.20.9-11); X 3.26.14-5 (3Comp 3.19.2-3); X 3.30.25-6 (3Comp 2.1.1/4Comp 3.9.4; 3Comp 3.23.2); X 3.30.29-30 (3Comp 3.9.1-2); X 3.32.5-6 (1Comp 3.28.5-6); X 3.34.8-9 (3Comp 3.26.4-5); X 3.42.1-2 (2Comp 5.19.1-2); X 4.11.1-2 (1Comp 4.11.1-2); X 5.39.1-4 (1Comp 5.34.1-4). Raymond never once corrected his sources to indicate that a second (or third) extract was part of the same letter, if such an identification was not already present in his sources. The one apparent exception in the ER (X 5.39.1-4 (1Comp 5.34.1-4)) turns out to be the result of a later copyist’s addition, as will be shown later on.
369 Horwitz, “Reshaping a decretal chapter.”
Tua, et infra. Porro cum laicis nulla sit de spiritualibus concedendi vel disponendi facultas, [Porro cum...facultas: deest 4Comp 3.9.4]370 imperialis concessio, quantumcunque generaliter fiat, neminem potest a solutione decimarum eximere, quae divina constitutione debentur. Nec occasione decimationis antiquae, licet in feudum decimae sint concessae, sunt decimae novalium usurpandae, cum in talibus non sit extendenda licentia, sed potius restringenda [Nec occasione...restringenda: deest 3Comp 2.1.1].
Tua, et infra. In the future, since laymen should have no power over the granting or distribution of spiritual things, an imperial grant, however general it may be, will not exempt anyone from the payment of tithes, which are owed by divine establishment. Nor shall the occasion of an older tithe, even if it has been granted in fief, be used as an opportunity to usurp the tithes on novalia, for in such cases the abuse should be curtailed rather than magnified.
The version of Tua in 4Comp 3.9.4 preserves the largest portion of text transmitted in the Decretals, lacking only the first half of the first sentence (Porro cum...facultas). The gap is more pronounced in 3Comp 2.1.1, where the entire second half of the canon is missing (Nec occasione...restringenda). It is almost certain that the full version of X 3.30.25 – encompassing the whole text inside Porro...restringenda – is the original shape Raymond gave to the canon, rather than an early modification of the text to reintroduce a pars decisa. Not only is this the reading of early Decretals manuscripts, the earliest commentaries also give lemmata from the full version.371
Horwitz discovered that certain manuscripts of the French recension of 3Comp actually have an expanded version of 3Comp 2.1.1 that restores the missing second half of the capitula (Nec occasione...restringenda), and thus has the entire text of Tua as it
370 All of the control manuscripts in the appendix concur in this reading: Ad. 22, fol. 260v; BnF lat. 3933, fol. 96v; BnF lat. 15997, fol. 215v; BnF NAL 2127, fol. 194v; Vat. lat. 1377, fol. 303r. Friedberg's apparatus offers the same picture for the 4Comp manuscripts he consulted.
371 Gottfried of Trani gives lemmata for facultas, decimationis, quae divina, and novalium: Vienna, ÖNB, cod. vind. pal. 2197, fol. 98r. Vincentius Hispanus, who compiled another early commentary on the Decretals, has lemmata for nulla, facultas, imperialis, novalium,, and restringenda: Madrid, BN, MS 30, fol. 192r.
later appeared in the Decretals.372 To the three French recension manuscripts found by Horwitz to have all of 3Comp 2.1.1 may be added the two used in this collation, BnF NAL 2127 and BnF lat. 3933.373 A key aspect of the fuller version of 3Comp 2.1.1 is that it was not based upon resuscitating text from the Compilatio Romana, a practice that is responsible for the bulk of the changes made to 3Comp by the French recension.374 The multiple etiology of French recension alterations will be an important point to consider later on when discussing the Decretals’ preservation of the correct inscriptions from Innocent III’s register that have no other known precedent other than French recension manuscripts.
The fact that the Decretals’ version of Tua is only sourced in French recension manuscripts would seem to make a compelling case for dependence. The problem is that no Italian manuscripts have been uncovered that preserve the fuller version.375 Horwitz’
solution is that Raymond reconstructed a composite chapter, pulling the bulk of the text from 4Comp 3.9.4 (imperialis concessio...restringenda) and the remaining, opening line
372 St. Omer MS 484, Graz MS 374 (Friedberg’s Cb) and BAV Vat. lat. 1378. Horwitz also noted that the Humanist copy of Vat. lat 1378, Vat. lat. 2510, contained the fuller version of 3Comp 2.1.1, and
interpolated the missing text at 3Comp 3.23.2 as well.
373 BnF lat. 3933, fol. 39v; BnF NAL 2127, fol. 114v. The other manuscripts of the control group adhere to the curtailed structure of Tua (et infra) Porro...debentur, as given in Friedberg: Ad. 22, fol. 164v; BnF lat.
15997, fol. 127r; Vat. lat. 1377, fol. 187r. Horwitz speculated (“Reshaping a decretal chapter,” p. 212) that the source of the additional text might be the collection of Alanus, since all three manuscripts with the expanded 3Comp 2.1.1 also contained an extra capitulum whose only known canonical source is Alanus’
collection, Alan Anh. 55, Licet dilecti filii (post 3Comp 3.7.3 = 4Comp 1.6.1 = X 1.10.3). This canon occurs in the chunk of text missing from BnF lat. 3933, but BnF NAL 2127 also contains it (fol. 139v), so Horwitz’ solution remains valid. Note that the manuscript sigla for the listing of Licet dilecti filii in Pennington, “French recension,” (no. 15, p. 59) should be emended to reflect the presence of the canon in BnF NAL 2127 (=Pd).
374 Pennington, “French recension,” pp. 60ff. 3Comp 2.1.1 is not among the capitula listed by Pennington (pp. 61-3) as having been amplified, perhaps because it only occured in a portion of French recension manuscripts.
375 Horwitz looked at thirty manuscripts in total, including thirteen French Recension and seventeen non-French recension: “Reshaping a decretal chapter,” pp. 219-20, n. 20). Including Friedberg (whose 3Comp
from 3Comp 2.1.1 (Porro cum...facultas), and moreover that he was prompted to do so by discussions among 3Comp commentators of the textual problems of Tua nobis.376 The most extensive of these discussions belongs to Tancred of Bologna, who noted in his commentary on 3Comp 3.23.2 that it did not include all of Innocent’s words on the subject of tithe avoidance. After laying out the main questions set up in 3Comp 3.23.2, the fourth and fifth of which are the problems of imperial exemptions from tithing and lay possession of tithes in feudum respectively, Tancred makes the cryptic remark at the break marking the extraction point of the text dealing with these two subjects that one must turn to 3Comp 2.1.1 for the solution to the exemption issue. Only certain manuscripts, according to Tancred, did not give the explication of the problem of lay possession of tithes.377 Taken at face value, this comment shows that Tancred was familiar with 3Comp manuscripts that transmitted the full text of 3Comp 2.1.1 as
interpolated by the French recension and later included in the Decretals. It is impossible to know, however, if Tancred had encountered a French recension manuscript, or whether there were also Italian manuscripts with the interpolated 3Comp 2.1.1 circulating within his orbit.
collations aren’t always reliable) and those collated for this chapter, this represents around 40% of known 3Comp manuscripts that have been checked for the expanded 3Comp 2.1.1.
376 Mention of the deficiencies are found in Vincentius Hispanus and Tancred of Bologna, with the comments of Tancred being the more substantial, as will be discussed presently. In his commentary on 3Comp 3.23.2, Vincentius Hispanus paraphrases a brief section of the passage that was added into 3Comp 2.1.1 in the French recension (and later X 3.30.25), though his language suggests that his source was the original, unedited letter (integra): “usurpare] cum in talibus potius restringenda licentia quam amplianda prout dicitur in integra,” quoted in: Horwitz, “Reshaping a decretal chapter,” p. 214. Johannes Teutonicus also included a brief notice in commenting on his own 4Comp 3.9.4, that it was an excerpt of 3Comp 3.23.2: "Tua] Hoc caput est pars illius, super eodem, Tua, lib. iii [3Comp 3.23.2]," Antonio Agustín, Antiquae Collectiones Decretalium, in: Opera Omnia, vol. 4 (Lucca, 1769) p. 660, note a.
377 “Tenetur] supra, e[odem] t[itulo], c. proximo. Et infra: Quarta [quaestio] non solvitur hic, sed habes solucionem eius supra, de iudiciis, c. 1, l[ibro] e[odem]. Similiter quidam libri non habent solucionem quinte questionis,” BnF NAL 2127, fol. 148r.
The source question as it ultimately pertains to the Decretals is an important one, though given the current state of evidence no definitive answer is possible at this time.
There was certainly enough ancillary information available for Raymond to construct a composite canon at X 3.30.25 from 3Comp 2.1.1 and 4Comp 3.9.4. Two points urge caution before accepting this view, however, the first methodological and the other textual. The methodological consideration is that for all the aggressiveness of
Raymond’s editing, he was not in the habit of significantly correcting or restoring the deleted portions of his sources. The one documented exception is the addition of the closing statement to X 3.50.4, Super specula, where Raymond put back in place Honorius III’s original extension of the prohibition on the monastic study of civil law to include the entire clergy – a draconian, and ultimately futile effort that had to be walked back by Gregory soon after the Decretals was promulgated.378 Tancred had attempted to soft-peddle the prohibition when he placed the text at 5Comp 3.37.1 by cutting out the portion applying to the secular clergy, but Raymond reached back to the original language of the decretal and reinstituted the ban for the express purpose of encouraging greater
theological study by the clergy.379 Over and above any direction he might have received from Gregory IX, Raymond’s background as a former university and cathedral school master, and as one of the motive forces behind the new penitential theology explains why he might have been so invested in the issue as to alter his sources in such a radical
fashion. Other than Super specula, there are no examples of similar source
reconstitution. This would accordingly make the purported hybridization of sources to
378 See above, chapter one, note 139.
379 “Quia vero theologiae studium cupimus ampliari...,” X 3.50.4. Friedberg indicates in his apparatus to the canon where the additional language occurs (Quia vero...observari).
achieve X 3.30.25, Tua, only the second case of its kind, and also one where there was not nearly as much at stake legally or personally to explain such an exception to Raymond’s normal method of deploying his sources.
The textual objection comes from the peculiar form of the longer portion of the letter placed by Raymond at X 3.30.26, Tua nobis. Most of Raymond’s editorial
interventions in X 3.20.26 are easily explainable. In keeping with the resecatis superfluis mandate, Raymond eliminated a section that essentially duplicated the tithe avoidance prohibitions already touched upon in X 3.30.25.380 The other excisions target progress reports on the judicial process surrounding the case, as well as pointed language
reminding the bishop of his pastoral duty to curb clerical nequitiae – in short nothing out of the ordinary. The anomaly occurs, rather, in the parts of the text that were preserved, and involves the reversal of two passages. The context of the reversal seems to be an attempt to make the order of sententiae/solutiones at the end of the letter match the
original order of quaestiones about tithe avoidance set forth by Innocent at the beginning.
The problems were described in the following order: 1) paying tithes on net agricultural produce rather than gross, 2) the practice among some manorial lords of disbursing the tithes of their peasants to their own favored clergy or pious uses, and 3) using clerical corruption as an excuse to withhold tithes altogether. In the original letter and in 3Comp these questions are answered out of order, with Innocent addressing the issue of clerical
380 Raymond removed Innocent’s initial remarks about imperial concessions and usurpation of novalia tithes, the solutions to which would eventually turn up in the previous canon. This kind of editing is a good example of how the Decretals differed from previous collections insofar as it tried to prevent the rough edges of canons from shading over into one another. The excised, duplicatory language from X 3.30.26 is as follows: “quidam insuper asserentes, se possessiones et omnia iura sua cum omni onere et districtu per imperialem concessionem adeptos, decimas sub huiusmodi generalitate detinere praesumunt. Occasione praeterea veteris decimationis, quam asserunt sibi concessam, aliqui decimas novalium sibi non metuunt usurpare.”
corruption (3), before then offering a combined response to expense deduction and tithe diversion by lords and peasants (1-2). In the Decretals, however, the ordering of Innocent’s responses has been reversed, presumably for the sake of consistency.381
One would be hard-pressed to find any other place in the Decretals where Raymond made a similar adjustment to the formal aspects of a decretal. One does find examples where he inherited a text that had been mis-ordered by the formal source compiler – to the point where it befuddled later copyists and commentators – but he refrained even here from rearranging the text and clearing up the confusion.382 The point is that when it came to editorial strategies like adding back the original language, or reordering the parts of a text, Raymond was very conservative. If Raymond was, in fact, responsible for the change in X 3.30.26, then it would be strange that this kind of a cosmetic adjustment to the form would not pop up anywhere else in the Decretals, when there were many such opportunities to correct the confusion in the sources. On the other
381 The reversal occurs right before the et infra break made by earlier compilers where they had extracted the text that would eventually become X 3.30.25, Tua. The whole passage reads in the Decretals as follows: “[1] et cum de cunctis omnino proventibus decimae sint reddendae, sicut colonus de parte fructuum, quae sibi remanet ratione culturae, sic et dominus de portione, quam percipit ratione terrae, decimam reddere sine diminutione tenetur. [2] Praetextu vero nequitiae clericorum nequeunt eas nisi quibus ex mandato divino debentur, pro suo arbitrio erogare, cum nulli sit licitum aliena cuiquam concedere praeter domini voluntatem, et infra...” The first passage [1] gives a general answer meant to cover both peasants and lords trying to find ways to skirt the full tithe payment, while the second [2] rejects the excuse of clerical corruption as a valid reason for withholding tithes. In 3Comp 3.23.2 (and originally Bern. 3.24.2) passage [2] came first, followed by [1] and then the break (et infra). None of the manuscripts collated for this chapter show anything other than the standard ER and formal source readings.
382 A good example is X 3.4.11, Ex tuae devotionis, which advised what to do with the prebends of clergy who refused to appear when summoned by a superior (Potthast 3090). Perhaps as part of editing a text that
382 A good example is X 3.4.11, Ex tuae devotionis, which advised what to do with the prebends of clergy who refused to appear when summoned by a superior (Potthast 3090). Perhaps as part of editing a text that